Appeal No. 1999-0313 Page 10
Application No. 08/918,089
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the
applied prior art in the manner proposed by the examiner to
meet the above-noted limitation stems 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). It follows that the decision of the examiner
to reject claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claim 49
We sustain the rejection of claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Once again, the appellants have not contested the
examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to
provide Brown with a pug mill as suggested and taught by
Reed's pug mill 122. The appellants only argue (brief, p. 7)
that such combination fails to suggest a kit in which an
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007