Appeal No. 1997-0091 Page 8
Application No. 08/115,530
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the
applied prior art in the manner proposed by the examiner to
meet the above-noted limitations 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 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). It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 9 and 14-17.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007