Appeal No. 97-0441
Application No. 08/511,841
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s position is not supported by the applied prior
art references and will therefore not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
Like appellant, when we consider the collective teachings
of Kimball and Veal, we find nothing therein which would have
been suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the art of
substituting or employing the float operated, adjustable
signal means of Veal, seen in Figures 8, 12A and 12B, in place
of the float (28) and switch (29) of Kimball. In our opinion,
the examiner’s position is based on impermissible hindsight
gleaned from appellant’s own disclosure and not from any fair
teaching or suggestion found in the applied patents
themselves. Absent the disclosure of the present application,
it is our opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated by the teachings of the applied prior
art to modify the toilet flushing system of Kimball in the
manner urged by the examiner so as to arrive at the subject
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007