Appeal No. 2005-1318 Page 10
Application No. 10/191,198
the package be rigid. Thus, the only possible suggestion for modifying Schneider in the
manner proposed by the examiner 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to
4, 6 to 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of
Galomb is reversed.
Rejection 2
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the APA in view of Galomb.
In the rejection (answer, p. 4), the examiner concluded that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transversely seal
the top of package of the APA as taught by Galomb to enclose and protect the
contents. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to use in the APA package the same heat sealable materials for both the wall
and base as taught by Galomb to have a more efficient and inexpensive
packaging operation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007