Appeal No. 96-3520
Application 08/260,563
rotationally molded, high density, cross-linked polyethylene
plastic drum.
Moreover, even if such a modification as suggested by
the examiner were made in the steel drum of admitted prior art
Figure 1, it is totally speculative on the examiner's part that
such a modification of the prior art steel drum would provide
improved reinforcement of the sidewall of the steel drum and
result in a steel drum inherently possessing the other
characteristics required in appellants' claim 1 on appeal. In
this regard, we note that such a retrospective view of inherency
is not a substitute for some teaching or suggestion in the prior
art which supports the selection and use of the various elements
of the prior art in the particular claimed combination. See In
re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir.
1993); In re Newell, 891 F.2d 899, 901, 13 USPQ2d 1248, 1250
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
Given that we have concluded that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness, we find it
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007