Appeal No. 97-1133
Application 08/424,247
all of the pending claims in this application under our au-
thority provided by 37 CFR § 1.196(b). Our reasoning in
support of these determinations follows.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we share appellant's
view that there is no teaching or suggestion in the applied
prior art references which would have led a person of ordinary
skill in the art to selectively modify the antiglare screen
or shade of Kivikink in the manner urged by the examiner. It
is our view, after a careful review of these references, that
in searching for an incentive for modifying the shade of
Kivikink, the examiner has impermissibly drawn from appel-
lant's own teachings and fallen victim to what our reviewing
Court has called "the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome
wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against
its teacher." W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007