Appeal No. 2000-0303 Page 7
Application No. 08/886,649
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Stretch to
include an upstanding smooth uncorrugated outer peripheral
wall with a plurality of slots in the outer peripheral wall
for draining water stems from hindsight knowledge derived from
the appellants' own disclosure. The use of such hindsight2
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).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 17, 18 and 21 to 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
2We have also reviewed the other applied prior art
references (i.e., Shobe and Ficener) but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiencies of Stretch and Pasman
discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007