Appeal No. 1998-3296 Page 8
Application No. 08/681,857
Rejection (3)
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5 through
8, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Stevens in view of Raeder.
It is our opinion that even if the bathing chair of
Stevens were provided with a forward terminal portion as
suggested by Raeder's forward terminal portion 11, one would
not have arrived at the claimed invention. In that regard, we
agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 8) that the
claimed broad, planar, unobstructed platform portion capable
of comfortably supporting the buttocks of the bather when
seated thereon as recited in independent claims 8 and 11 is
not readable on terminal portion 11 of Raeder's bathtub 3.
Additionally, we fail to see any motivation, absent
impermissible hindsight, to have provided the bathing chair of
Stevens with a forward terminal portion as taught by Raeder's
forward terminal portion 11.4
4The 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,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007