Appeal No. 1997-1765 Page 6
Application No. 08/324,927
However, these limitations are not suggested by the applied
prior art. In that regard, while Robert does teach a venting
member disposed over an exhaust aperture in a cover member, it
is our opinion that Robert does not teach or suggest using
such a venting member over the cover member of Herron since
the cover member of Herron is not intended to cover a vehicle
being driven at speed. 4
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Herron 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. 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,
4We are aware of Herron's disclosure (column 5, lines 11-
-36) that a vehicle having his protective cover can be moved
within a waiting area prior to pickup by a customer. However,
this disclosure is insufficient in our view to suggest the a
vehicle with Herron's cover thereon would have been driven at
a speed sufficient to warrant the addition of Robert's vents 8
and semi-cone 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007