Appeal No. 1998-1778 Page 8
Application No. 08/521,358
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 9 and 27
We agree with the appellants' arguments that the combined
teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Terve, Olin and
Kenway) would not have suggested the subject matter of claim 9
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 9 requires an
operational unit containing a solenoid valve and at least one
electrical component to be sealed against humidity and exposed
for operation by a person in the toilet compartment and
otherwise protected against unauthorized human access.
However, these limitations are not suggested by the applied
prior art. In our view, the only possible suggestion for
combining the applied prior art 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-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007