Appeal No. 94-2999
Application 07/672,286
In this latter regard, we emphasize that only the appellant
has taught in his specification disclosure that “the alcohol
produced in the fermentation process [is an acceptable] ...
source of alcohol for the sterilization” of the fermentation
vessel. It is well settled that “[t]o imbue of 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.” W.L. Gore v. Garlock, 721 F.2d 1540,
1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In light of the
deficiencies of the applied prior art, the examiner’s conclusion
that the here claimed subject matter would have been obvious
could only have resulted from “the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrome.” It follows that we also cannot sustain the
§ 103 rejection of claims 8 through 28 as being obvious over
Tegtmeier in view of Heden and either Harandi or Feldman.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007