Appeal No. 1996-3828 Page 12
Application No. 08/304,465
the above-noted limitation stems from hindsight knowledge
derived from the appellants' own disclosure. In that regard, 3
we see no suggestion in the applied prior art to have provided
a means for releasably securing Irwin's baffle holder 18
(i.e., the claimed support arm) to his support arm 17 (i.e.,
the claimed support head). It follows that we cannot sustain
the examiner's rejections of claims 8 through 10.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
3The use of such hindsight knowledge to support an
obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course,
impermissible. See, for example, W. L. Gore and Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-
13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007