Appeal 2007-0891
Application 09/445,043
as to combinations of two references. As the Examiner has provided only
conclusory statements with no reasoning or evidence to support the
conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner has engaged in impermissible
hindsight.
The Examiner (Answer 4-5) also argues that the drawings, though not
drawn to scale, show a small spacing and, therefore, "reasonably disclose
and suggest" to the skilled artisan a spacing less than the maximum possible
extension of the flexible membrane towards the laminar member. However,
as explained by Appellants (Reply Br. 6), since the drawings are not drawn
to scale, one cannot determine any details about the spacing except that a
space exists. Therefore, the drawings do not suggest the claimed spacing.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,
6, 8 through 11, and 13 over Hiroshi.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 through 11,
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JRG
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013