Appeal No. 96-3520
Application 08/260,563
skill in the art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993)(quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
In this case, essentially for the reasons stated by
appellants in their brief (pages 3-5) and reply brief, we find
that the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustainable. Like appellants, we
are of the opinion that the examiner has inappropriately relied
upon hindsight and improperly used appellants' own disclosure and
teachings as a guide through the prior art in selectively
modifying the prior art steel drum of Figure 1 of the application
in light of the teachings of Snyder's plastic drum so as to
arrive at the claimed subject matter. Contrary to the examiner's
statement on page 4 of the answer, Snyder does not in any way
teach one having ordinary skill in the art "to apply such
flattened hoops to a steel drum" (emphasis added). The entirety
of the disclosure and teachings of the Snyder patent relate to a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007