Appeal No. 1997-1602
Application No. 08/298,088
it is plain that the rejection under consideration is based upon impermissible hindsight
derived from the appellants' own disclosure rather than upon a teaching, suggestion or
incentive derived from the prior art. In re W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983). As a consequence, we cannot
sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection of the appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Bittscheidt or Takahashi or Golder in view Fukuda and Nakane and Shih and Super and
Swisher.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007