Appeal No. 98-0111
Application No. 08/290,213
they also are detachable from the floor, since the claim sets
forth no particular relationship with the floor section once
they are folded (i.e. folded against the floor section).
The rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
We have carefully considered all of the appellant’s
arguments, but they have not convinced us that the positions
taken by the examiner are in error. Our opinion with regard
to the various arguments has been set forth above. As for the
argument that the rejections involve hindsight, we wish to
note that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense
necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning,
but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed
invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned
only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ
209, 212 (CCPA 1971). We believe that to be the case here.
SUMMARY
All of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007