Appeal No. 97-0746
Application 08/135,883
In the final analysis, the only way the examiner could
have arrived at his conclusion of obviousness in light of the
Pfister patent is through hindsight based on appellant’s
teachings. Hindsight analysis, however, is clearly improper.
In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 443, 230 USPQ 313, 316 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we must reverse the § 103 rejection
of claims 1 and 2 based on the Pfister patent.
With regard to the § 103 rejection of claim 4 based on
the combined teachings of Pfister and Grant, Grant is relied
on by the examiner for a teaching of a pin and slot
arrangement to facilitate limited relative rotation between
two telescoping tubular members. This rejection also must be
reversed inasmuch as Grant does not rectify the foregoing
deficiencies of Pfister.
With regard to the rejection of the appealed claims based
on the combined teachings of Plumly, Ferrigan and Grant, we
cannot
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007