Appeal No. 1997-0858
Application No. 08/323,065
region pressure within the here claimed range. Nevertheless,
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use
in this region a pressure similar to that taught by Harada and
that it would have been obvious to modify this pressure of
Harada in a fashion so as to be within the range claimed by
the appellant.
Thus, viewed in its most favorable light, the examiner's
rejection of the independent claims on appeal requires the
selection of three different pressure parameters from three
different references and combining them in such a way as to
yield the pressure differential and pressure values required
by the independent claims on appeal coupled with the
modification of one pressure parameter while ignoring or
eliminating other pressure values taught by the references.
It is clear to us that the only guidance for so combining the
applied references constitutes the appellant's own disclosure.
Plainly, therefore, the rejection before us is based upon
impermissible hindsight derived from the subject specification
rather than upon some teaching, suggestion or incentive
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007