Appeal No. 1999-1873 Page 5
Application No. 08/762,572
dust accumulated on the disc is wound up. The dust and N2 are rapidly vacuumed
from a vacuum exhaust line 8 and the dust wound up with the N2 gas are absorbed by
the vacuum pump (translation, p. 6). Thus, Nagata does not suggest discharging
particulate-free air into the environment by providing filtering for preventing
contamination of the surrounding environment by particulates. Asakawa teaches a
vacuum tank 1 provided with an electrostatic collection device 14 which collects
microparticles 13a which microparticles 13a are subsequently exhausted from exhaust
outlet 3 to a point outside the vacuum tank 1 as shown schematically in Figure 3
(translation, p. 4). Thus, Asakawa does not suggest discharging particulate-free air
into the environment by providing filtering for preventing contamination of the
surrounding environment by particulates.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying any of the primary references (i.e.,
Fukuda, Itou, Suzuki and Tennant) in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet
the above-noted limitations 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. 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007