Appeal No. 2000-0859 Page 9
Application No. 08/777,668
to said container" as recited in independent claim 16; or
"detachably attaching the decorative panel to the shipping
case to be flush with an upper platform thereof" as recited in
independent claim 19.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the
applied prior art to arrive at the claimed invention 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 Assocs., 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 9 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007