Appeal No. 1998-2921 Page 6
Application No. 08/511,451
We agree with the appellants that the applied prior art
does not suggest the claimed invention. Moreover, it appears
to us that even if the applied prior art were modified in the
manner set forth by the examiner (answer, pp. 3-4), it would
not result in the claimed invention. In that regard, the
applied prior art does not teach or suggest attaching one of
the second elements to a binding surface at a first location
on one of the first annular elements so as to form a first
sealing ring of a first configuration and attaching another
second annular element to a binding surface at a second
location on another first annular element so as to form a
second sealing ring of a second configuration different than
the first configuration.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the
applied prior art to arrive at the claimed invention 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 Assocs., Inc.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007