Ex parte SIEGFRIED R. WISSMANN et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 97-0576                                                          
          Application No. 08/308,876                                                  

          that Griff and Brydson disclose that it is known to drive pairs             
          of screws in an extruder such that they co-rotate or counter-               
          rotate, that Skidmore discloses counter-rotating screws in a feed           
          device that have the configuration of the body sections recited             
          in appealed claim 9, and that Loomans discloses counter-rotating            
          screws in a feed device wherein the screw channel has a generally           
          U-shaped configuration. However, we find nothing in this mosaic             
          of references that would either teach or suggest the                        
          modifications proposed by the examiner in the rejection of the              
          claims on appeal.                                                           
                    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 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 appellants' disclosure and the            
          application of impermissible hindsight.  Thus, we cannot sustain            


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007