Appeal No. 1998-0432 Page 9
Application No. 08/681,070
pulling action. In our view, the only suggestion for
modifying Burd in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet
the "integral threads" limitations stems from hindsight
knowledge derived from the appellants' 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, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Since the prior art as combined by the examiner in the
rejection before us in this appeal fails to arrive at the
claimed invention for the reasons set forth above, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007