Appeal No. 1999-0072
Application 08/692,466
As is apparent from the foregoing descriptions, however,
the teachings of Nogami, Stoy and Statler are not particularly
relevant to one another. The only suggestion for combining
these disparate references in the manner proposed by the
examiner stems from hindsight knowledge derived solely from
the appellants’ disclosure. The use of such hindsight
knowledge to support a conclusion of obviousness is, of
course, impermissible. Therefore, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 12.
Finally, the application is remanded to the examiner to
consider:
a) whether the appellants’ use of the terms “line” and
“leg” in the claims is inconsistent on its face and/or when
read in light of the underlying disclosure, and thus warrants
an appropriate objection or 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection; and
b) whether the preamble of claim 9, which is directed to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007