Appeal 2007-1934
Application 09/993,443
1 Lastly, Applicant argues that the Examiner’s combination of
2 references was based on improper hindsight. “[A]ny judgment on
3 obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight
4 reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
5 within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made
6 and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure,
7 such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395,
8 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner correctly relied on
9 the knowledge of the art and therefore the rejections were not based on
10 hindsight.
11 For the above reasons, we sustain the rejections made by the
12 Examiner.
13 E. Decision
14 Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
15 Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
16 unpatentable over Anguera ‘191, in view of either Larsen or Anguera ‘395
17 and Lewis is affirmed.
18 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
19 being unpatentable over Anguera ‘191, in view of either Larsen or Anguera
20 ‘395, Lewis and Anglehart is affirmed.
21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
22 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013