Appeal No. 1996-3178
Application 08/407,275
teaches a solenoid 26 for locking and unlocking an identification device and key 21 as claimed.
Furthermore, we note that Saliga discusses a retaining latch for preventing unauthorized access as well
as an indicator lamp to show item location (see column 1, lines 44 to 51). We agree with the examiner
(Answer, pages 3 to 4) and find that it is the combination of teachings and concepts of Saliga and
Banks, along with Thomas, that meets the language of the claims on appeal, and not the structural
combination of the references.
Lastly, we consider appellants’ argument (Brief, page 5) that the rejection is based on
impermissible hindsight (i.e., the examiner’s understanding founded on applicants’ disclosure). It
must be recognized that any judgement 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 applicants’ disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). We cannot find any assertion in
appellants’ Brief that the reasoning of the obviousness rejection in the Office action took into account
knowledge gleaned only from applicants’ disclosure. In other words, it appears that applicants’
hindsight argument is merely a general argument or assertion.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007