Appeal No. 2005-1471 Page 10
Application No. 10/028,833
claim 38. Specifically, the applied prior art does not suggest a display screen coupled
to a movable siderail of a bed and a processor in communication with the display
screen, the processor being configured to provide variable graphical information to the
display screen.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Marra in the manner proposed by
the examiner to arrive at the claimed subject matter 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 claim 38
and claims 65 to 69 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Marra in view of Williams is reversed.
The obviousness rejection based on Mitchell and Williams
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 38, 40 to 44, 65, 68, and 69 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Williams.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007