Ex parte HALE - Page 9

          Appeal No. 96-1604                                                          
          Application 08/272,906                                                      

          resistance to the diametrical expansion forces critical to the              
          manner in which the hogshead of Sproull functions.  We recognize            
          that Sproull discloses that either the walls of the container               
          or the attachment tapes of the zipper means can be elastic.                 
          However, the fastener (zipper) itself and its connection to the             
          panel ends must be of sufficient rigidity and strength to                   
          maintain the connection during the stretching of the elastic                
          portions caused by the diametrical expansion.  Nothing in the               
          disclosure of Hancock indicates that the H-shaped connector is              
          intended to function, or is even capable of functioning, in a               
          manner to preclude separation of the panel connection during                
          diametrical expansion of container walls formed thereby.                    
               As stated in W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d            
          1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,            
          469 U.S. 851 (1984),                                                        
                    [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                           
          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                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007