Appeal No. 1998-2851 Page 7
Application No. 08/756,901
does teach the use of support ribs 124, 126 to maintain the
socket of a "mini-light" in substantially perpendicular
alignment to a base member 106, it is our opinion that Gary
would not have provided any suggestion or motivation to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have modified either Williams struck-up fingers 23 or
Hickey's rim 14 to have included circumferentially spaced
ridges.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Hickey
and/or Williams in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet
the above-noted limitations stems from hindsight knowledge
derived from the appellant's own disclosure and not the
applied prior art. 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
rejections of claims 10, 12 and 16.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007