Appeal No. 1997-2105
Application No. 08/426,160
for purposes distinct from the purposes of the here claimed
invention wherein the separation tray and downpipe are located
between the
bottoms liquid hold-up pool and the vapor feed contacting zone
to thereby establish a vapor sealing means for preventing the
hotter vapors from directly contacting the cooler liquid.
From our perspective, it is only the appellant’s own
disclosure which would have suggested modifying the prior art
shown in Figure 1 in such a manner as to result in the
arrangements of Sampath or Bridgeford disposed at the here
claimed location to thereby establish a vapor sealing means in
accordance with the independent claims on appeal. It follows
that we consider the rejection before us to be fatally based
upon the unwitting application of impermissible hindsight.
W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 312-312 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). We cannot sustain, therefore, the examiner’s section
103 rejection of the appealed claims as being unpatentable
over the admitted prior art in view of Sampath with or without
Bridgeford.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007