Appeal No. 97-0519
Application 08/291,719
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have provided the Hall device
with such location indication means for the
same reasons (answer, page 7).
Like appellant (brief, page 6), we are of the
opinion that the examiner’s above positions are based on
impermissible hindsight gleaned from appellant’s own
disclosure and not from any fair teaching or suggestion found
in the applied prior art
references themselves. In this regard, we consider that the
examiner has used appellant’s own disclosure and the claimed
invention itself as a blueprint for piecing together unrelated
elements in the prior art so as to defeat patentability of the
apparatus defined in appellant’s independent claims 1, 12, 18
and 21 on appeal.
Absent the disclosure of the present application, it
is our opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to modify the portable breathing apparatus
of Hall in light of the decorative cabinet door (13) of Heffer
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007