Appeal No. 97-2224
Application 08/510,613
examiner’s position, however, is that Conrad’s hook supporting
brackets have little, if any, practical pertinence to Twork’s
filter holding bracket. Indeed and contrary to the examiner’s
reasoning, the Twork bracket would appear to more securely
retain its filter than the Conrad bracket retains its hook.
Moreover, the proposed modification of the Twork bracket in
view of Conrad runs directly counter to Twork’s objective of
providing a fuel filter bracket which can be utilized without
the need for any tools or special equipment. In this light,
we are constrained to conclude that the only suggestion for
combining Twork and Conrad in the manner advanced by the
examiner stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant’s own disclosure. The use of such hindsight
knowledge to support a conclusion of obviousness is, of
course, impermissible. Since the other applied references do
not overcome this flaw in the basic Twork-Conrad combination,
we shall not sustain any of the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007