Appeal No. 97-4455
Application 08/616,605
one, much less that it be the “outer” panel that is the largest. From our perspective, the only suggestion
for doing so is found in the hindsight afforded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure. This, of
course, is not a proper basis for establishing obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 23
USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A prima facie case of obviousness having not been established with
regard to the subject matter of claim 9, we will not sustain the rejection. Nor, it follows, will we sustain
the rejection of claims 3 and 4, which depend from claim 9.
The addition of Japanese ‘191 to the other two references does not cure the defect set forth
above, and therefore we also will not sustain the rejection of claim 5.
SUMMARY
Neither of the rejections is sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007