Appeal No. 2000-0301 Page 5
Application No. 08/690,402
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the
appellants assert (brief, pp. 4-13) that the "pair of
elasticized cuffs" as set forth in the independent claims on
appeal (i.e., claims 1 and 6) are not suggested by the applied
prior art absent the use of impermissible hindsight. More 2
specifically, the appellants argue that the applied prior art
does not teach or suggest the claimed pair of elasticized
cuffs including "a substantially crescent-shape portion" or "a
1(...continued)
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
2The use of hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellants' own disclosure to support an obviousness rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007