Appeal No. 2000-1457 Page 6
Application No. 08/739,888
curtain rod 25 clearly is not one smooth continuous curve
between first and second end portions received and fixed in
fittings. To supply these omissions in the teachings of the
applied prior art, the examiner made determinations (answer,
pages 4-6) that these differences would have been obvious to
an artisan. However, these determinations have not been
supported by any evidence that would have led an artisan to
arrive at the claimed invention.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Perrotta
in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's 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). It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejections of claims 1 to 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007