"Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of record."
The 1201Tuesday blog discusses the rather short BPAI opinion reversing the examiner in the case Ex parte REINHOLD SCHMIEDING.
The USPTO had cited the case In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 on obvious design choice. Do you know what a hemi-condyle is? What is implied by the claim language "in the shape of a hemi-condyle"? The examiner took the position that such language does not imply a specific shape, and that position lost.
The appellant had cited In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981).
On "obvious design choice," recall the text within In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (CAFC 1995):
See In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 25 USPQ2d 1076 (Fed.Cir.1992) (finding of "obvious design choice" precluded where the claimed structure and the function it performs are different from the prior art).
The USPTO had cited the case In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 on obvious design choice. Do you know what a hemi-condyle is? What is implied by the claim language "in the shape of a hemi-condyle"? The examiner took the position that such language does not imply a specific shape, and that position lost.
The appellant had cited In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981).
On "obvious design choice," recall the text within In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (CAFC 1995):
See In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 25 USPQ2d 1076 (Fed.Cir.1992) (finding of "obvious design choice" precluded where the claimed structure and the function it performs are different from the prior art).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 12:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home