Appeal No. 1998-1962 Page 10
Application No. 08/213,933
suggestion to have provided "adhesive means" within the
grooves 40 of plates 8 and 10 since Perry's plates 8 and 10 of
the central anchor 2 were designed to permit the cable 44 to
be removed therefrom. Furthermore, we note that Perry's
peripheral anchor 4 which includes the epoxy adhesive material
within the hole in the peripheral surface of the disc 54 is
clearly not readable on the claimed invention.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Perry in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitation stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's 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). It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2 to 6
and 15 to 18 dependent thereon.
Claim 7
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007