Appeal No. 1997-0373 Page 7
Application No. 08/151,694
have modified Tetro's sheet to be a stencil master plate sheet.
In addition, it is our view that the only suggestion for
modifying Tetro based upon the teachings of Wooster and Newell
in the manner proposed by the examiner (answer, pp. 4-5) to
meet the above-noted limitations stems from hindsight
knowledge derived from the appellant's own disclosure, not
from the teachings of the applied prior art. The 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).
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 12 to 15, 17, 21 to 25 and 27 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007