Appeal No. 1999-1505 Page 6
Application No. 08/638,454
1992); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
In this case, we agree with the arguments set forth in
the appellant's brief and reply brief that the applied prior
art does not suggest the claimed subject matter.
Specifically, it is our opinion that the applied prior art
does not provide any motivation to have changed the admitted
prior art's hands-on dispensing to be hands-free dispensing.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the admitted
prior art by the teachings of Tinker in the manner proposed by
the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's 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 we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 12 through 19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007