Appeal No. 2000-1478 Page 8
Application No. 09/052,531
two brake shoes. We see no teaching or suggestion in the
applied prior art that would have suggested using two hold
down devices for the leading brake shoe while using only one
hold down device for the trailing brake shoe. Thus, we
conclude that the only suggestion for modifying the applied
prior art in the manner proposed by the examiner to arrive at
the claimed invention 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 and 2.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007