Appeal No. 1998-2941 Page 11
Application No. 08/061,985
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,682
taught by the teachings of Jones, GB 612503 or the Moller-
Madsen article. We do not agree with the examiner on this
matter. In this regard, it is our opinion that the only
suggestion for modifying Hanson in the manner proposed by the
examiner stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellants' own disclosure. That is, it is our view that one6
skilled in the art following the teachings of the News &
Observer article, the PSA abstract and the Hamid-Samimi thesis
to prepare an extended shelf life liquid whole egg product
would not have deviated from the specific pasteurizing
techniques taught by the News & Observer article, the PSA
abstract and the Hamid-Samimi thesis unless provided with
sufficient motivation. In this case, it is our determination
that the prior art as applied lacks sufficient motivation for
an artisan to have done so.
6The 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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007