Appeal No. 1997-2252
Application No. 08/225,965 Page 6
neither Alesi or Kozlowski teach or suggest positioning a ring
including a cut out portion in a cavity of one of the dies.
Likewise, while the examiner is correct that Swenson does teach
the use of an undercut edge shaping means (i.e., a cut out) in
the molding art, Swenson does not teach or suggest positioning a
ring including a cut out portion in a cavity of one of the dies.
Additionally, it is our opinion that the combined teachings of
the applied prior art would not have suggested the step of
"positioning a ring including a cut out portion in said cavity."
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Spengler in the
manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted step
stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants' 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 claims 1 to 10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007