Appeal No. 98-1455 Page 17
Application No. 08/625,936
suggestion in the applied prior art of modifying Chinomi by
the flange on De Rose's hub 103. Thus, we must conclude that
the examiner used impermissible hindsight. In addition, we 7
perceive no suggestion in Williams to provide the claimed weld
seam (i.e., weld the flange member to the torsion member)
absent the use of impermissible hindsight since Williams
teaches welding the flat body portion/region and not a flange
member of the arm 115 (i.e., the linkage member) to the
torsion bar 114 as shown in Figure 4.
Since all the limitations of claims 1 through 15 are not
suggested by the applied prior art for the reasons set forth
7The conclusion that the claimed subject matter is
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some
objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have
led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988). The examiner may not, because of doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies
in the factual basis for the rejection. See In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied,
389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007