Appeal No. 98-1457 Page 8
Application No. 08/530,006
artisan based upon the teachings of Scowen and Schlechtendahl
or Hynds and Schlechtendahl. However, it is our view that
this determination of the examiner has not been supported by
any evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Crandall
in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
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). Specifically, we find that there is no
suggestion in the applied prior art to modify Crandall's link
to be formed of a thermoplastic material and provided with an
intermediate section having an I-shaped cross-sectional
configuration. While Schlechtendahl discloses an I-shaped
cross-sectional configuration used in a connecting rod for an
internal combustion engine and Scowen and Hynds disclose links
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007