Appeal No. 95-3943
Application 08/050,318
adjusted position, neither of these references would have
suggested their application to the adjustable table or desk
structure of Pülz. There is simply no suggestion or motivation
from the combined teachings of these references for replacing
the frictionally held adjustment links 11, 12 of Pülz with means
for assisting vertical lifting, much less the particular gas (or
hydraulic) spring devices of Sema or Guglielmi.
As stated in W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
[t]o imbue one of ordinary skill in the art
with knowledge of the invention in suit, when
no prior art reference or references of
record convey or suggest that knowledge, is
to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrome wherein that which only
the inventor taught is used against its
teacher.
It is our conclusion that the only reason to combine the
teachings of the applied references in the manner proposed by
the examiner results from a review of appellant's disclosure
and the application of impermissible hindsight. Thus, we cannot
sustain the examiner's rejections of appealed claims 4, 5, and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007