Appeal No. 1999-1746 Page 6
Application No. 08/827,841
applied prior art. In that regard, while Shea does teach a
resilient ring 13 formed of insulating material as rubber
positioned between the cowl 2 and the knob 12, it is our
opinion that Shea would not have suggested modifying either
Pudliner's bracket or the fixture attachment of Hoegger '739
to include an anti-rotation pad between the room wall and the
front wall of said bracket portion.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying either
Pudliner's bracket or the fixture attachment of Hoegger '739
in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitation stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's own disclosure. The use of such hindsight
knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984). It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejections of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007