Appeal No. 1999-1991 Page 7
Application No. 08/611,725
applied to and removed from a ceiling fan blade. However,
these limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art.
In that regard, while Carnahan does teach a layer of adhesive
50 attached to the lower surface 30 of filter 14 for attaching
the filter to a fan blade, it is our opinion that Carnahan's
teachings would not have suggested modifying Conklin's
applique (i.e., decorative sheet 32) to have included a rear
surface coated with a pressure sensitive adhesive material
which permits the applique to be applied to and removed from a
ceiling fan blade.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Conklin 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). Furthermore, the mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007