Appeal No. 1998-1773 Page 8
Application No. 08/609,303
from the appellant's own disclosure. In fact, we agree with 3
the appellant's argument (reply brief, p. 5) that the combined
teachings of Brunker and Schantz would have suggested
modifying the connections between the inner conductors of the
cables 108 and the terminals 106, not the connections between
the metallic shields of Brunker's cables 108 and the ground
plate 104.
We have also reviewed the Dohi reference but find nothing
therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Brunker and
Schantz discussed above.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 25 through 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
3The 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007