Appeal No. 2000-1474 Page 18
Application No. 08/962,902
knowledge derived from the appellant's own disclosure since 4
the teachings of Kondo, Okumura, and Gojo do not relate a non-
motorized scooter. Specifically, it is our opinion that
neither Kondo's engine protector 1, Okumura's undercover 52,
or Gojo's engine cover 100 would have provided any motivation
or suggestion to have modified the non-motorized scooter of
Mueller in the manner proposed by the examiner. Accordingly,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 8, 22, 24-30
and 34-37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.5
Claim 32
We sustain the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
4The 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).
5We have also reviewed the references to Stevenson and
Fisher additionally applied in the rejection of claims 27 and
29 but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiencies of Mueller discussed above.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007