Appeal No. 1997-0151
Application 08/169,542
147 (CCPA 1976). All of the references relied upon by the
examiner concern reducing the rate of a browning reaction
rather than increasing it as required by claim 40, and none of
the references pertain to baked goods. To arrive at
appellant’s claimed invention the examiner has used
impermissible hindsight in view of appellant’s disclosure of
the invention in his specification. See W.L. Gore & Assocs.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re
Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960).
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
appellant’s claimed invention over McKenna taken together with
Strobel, appellant’s admitted prior art, and Segall.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007