Appeal No. 1999-1816 Page 12
Application No. 08/370,540
The examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that
[w]hile the tab/ramp arrangement of Tisbo et al. is
opposite the claimed arrangement (i.e., the ramps are on
the top and bottom members while the tabs are on the back
member) such an arrangement represents an obvious
reversal of parts providing no added advantage or
purpose. Moreover, while Tisbo et al. shows compression
of the ramp member rather than the tab member as claimed,
to reverse the arrangement such that tab deflects rather
than the ramps would have been an obvious functionally
equivalent arrangement.
The appellants argue that the subject matter of claims 3,
6 and 36 is not taught or suggested by the applied prior art.
We agree. While we agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to reverse the position of Tisbo's insertion tabs
and socket receptacles, we see no reason absent the use of
impermissible hindsight , to have made the projection 126 of4
Tisbo compress upon insertion of the insertion tabs into the
4In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the
applied prior art in the manner proposed by the examiner to
meet the above-noted limitations 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).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007