Appeal No. 1999-0231
Application No. 08/472,354
disparate teachings of Fellow’s Figure 1 and Figure 4
embodiments or for modifying either the Figure 1 or the Figure
4 embodiment of Fellows in view of Arkell 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).
We have reviewed the Tittgemeyer, Vrotacoe and Fischer
references applied along with Fellows and Arkell by the
examiner against claim 1 on appeal and the Smith reference
applied along with Fellows, Arkell, Tittgemeyer, Vrotacoe and
Fischer against claim 6. However, we find nothing in these
additional references which makes up for the deficiencies of
Fellows and Arkell discussed above.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing § 103 rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2, 3 and 5 through 7.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007