Appeal No. 98-2446
Application 08/593,070
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by each of Seitz and Collier
will not be sustained.
We next look to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, 8 and 15 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatent-able over Seitz in view of Lineweber and Kusta. In
this instance, we see no way that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to make any combination of the totally
disparate rail-road car hatch cover of Seitz and the seal ring
arrangements of Lineweber and Kusta so as to arrive at a cover
for a “standard open head container” as in appellant’s claim 1
on appeal. In this regard, we are of the view that the
examiner’s position is based on impermissible hindsight
gleaned from appellant’s own disclosure and not from any fair
teaching or suggestion found in the applied prior art
references themselves.
More specifically, we consider that the examiner has used
appellant’s own disclosure and the claimed invention itself as
a blueprint for piecing together unrelated elements from
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007