Appeal No. 1998-1964 Page 6
Application No. 08/518,784
impermissible hindsight in reaching the determination of
obviousness.2
Since all the limitations of claims 1 through 20 are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, we will not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 20.
2The 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007