Appeal No. 2000-1298
Application 08/938,779
them other than through the use of hindsight. In appellants’
view, the examiner has combined the applied references only
after reading and studying appellants’ own disclosure which
has served as the road map for the combination. We agree with
appellants’ assessment of the examiner’s rejection.
Assuming for argument sake that Knocke is analogous prior
art, we nonetheless share appellants’ view that there is no
motivation, teaching or suggestion in the applied references,
whether considered individually or collectively, for the
examiner’s proposed combination thereof in such a manner as to
result in appellants’ claimed baffle preform. In this regard,
we agree with appellants that the examiner has used
impermissible hindsight derived from appellants’ own teachings
in seeking to combine the applied prior art references in a
manner so as to result in a baffle preform that has the
specific configuration set forth in appellants’ claims on
appeal, is made of aluminum and includes a braze clad on at
least one side thereof. In our opinion, even if one of
ordinary skill in the art had selected some form of aluminum
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007