Appeal No. 98-1459 Page 7
Application No. 08/309,756
by any evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at
the claimed invention.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Breslow 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
suggestion in Gold to modify Breslow's shelf divider to
connect the divider arm (35) to the rail (15) by providing the
rail (15) with two upwardly opening channels (similar to
Gold's cutouts 26) and by providing the divider arm (35) with
two L-shaped tabs (similar to Gold's tabs 24) to engage the
two upwardly opening channels (similar to Gold's cutouts 26).
However, when this modification suggested by Gold is done, the
resulting device lacks the claimed snap clip. The term "snap
clip" must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007