Appeal No. 1998-2854 Page 7
Application No. 08/500,278
In applying the above-noted guidance we reach the
conclusion that the claimed phrase "at least sufficient to
maintain peripheral vascular resistance in the body areas of
the patient covered by the encircling bladders" means a
pressure of about 25 mm Hg as set forth on page 10, lines 12-
18, of the appellants' specification.
The above-noted limitation is not suggested by the
applied prior art since none of the applied prior art teaches
or suggests cycling air pressure between a lower pressure of
about 25 mm Hg or higher and a higher pressure.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the
applied prior art to meet the above-noted limitation would
stem 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-
13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007