Appeal No. 96-2747
Application 08/245,518
in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for
example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988).
In the present case, we fail to perceive any teaching,
suggestion or incentive in either reference which would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Albrecht in the manner
proposed by the examiner. From our perspective, the only
suggestion for doing so is found via the luxury of the hindsight
accorded one who first viewed the appellant's specification.
That, of course, is impermissible.
The rejection is not sustained,
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007