Appeal No. 97-3345
Application 08/332,936
would have logically commended themselves to one facing the
afore- mentioned problems. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659,
23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is additionally
appellant’s position (brief, page 17) that the references do
not provide suggestion for their combination but have been
combined using impermissible hindsight. We disagree. As set
forth, supra, we have determined that the applied teachings
provide ample suggestion for their combination. Further, the
present rejection is not inappropriate as being based upon
impermissible hindsight since, as revealed above, it is
properly founded only upon knowledge which was within the
level of ordinary skill at the
time the claimed invention was made. Thus, the rejection of
claim 14 is sound. Relative to appellant’s comments regarding
claim 33 (brief, pages 17 through 19), we refer to our dis-
cussion, supra, wherein we concluded that the subject matter
of this claim would have been suggested by the evidence of
obviousness.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007