Appeal No. 96-1122
Application 08/087,134
photosensitive members, or provided any other reason why the
references themselves would have motivated one of ordinary
skill in the art to use Matsunaga’s biphenylene group as
Ueda’s arylene. The motivation relied upon by the examiner
comes solely from appellant’s specification. Thus, the
examiner used impermissible hindsight when rejecting the
claims. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since no prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we need not address the experimental results in
the declarations. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Rinehart, 531 F.2d at
1052, 189 USPQ at 147.
New ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection of claims 2, 3, 11, 22 and
23.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007