Appeal No. 95-4866
Application 08/179,770
Thus, the examiner used impermissible hindsight when rejecting
the claims. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1553,
220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Rothermel, 276
F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960).
The references applied by the examiner other than those
discussed above are relied upon for teachings of features of
appellant’s claimed apparatus other than the fixed and movable
walls.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in any of
appellant’s claims.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 46 and 48
over Willingham, Hummelshoj and either Rossetti or SOMECAL, in
view of Botting, claims 32, 36-39, 44, 45 and 47 over these
references, further in view of Rost, claims 33-35 and 41-43
over the references applied to claims 32, 36-39, 44, 45 and
47, further in view of Sontag, Welden and Lowndes, and claim
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007