Ex parte GRIMM et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 1997-3797                                       Page 7           
          Application No. 08/121,820                                                  


          or suggest automatically reading, via a bar code reader, a bar              
          code of a bag holding a blood product via software which                    
          automatically confirms by the bar code                                      
          if the bag is approved for medical treatment (i.e.,                         
          irradiation), automatically performing medical treatment                    
          (i.e., irradiating the bag with ultraviolet radiation) if the               
          bag is approved but automatically terminating the process                   
          without medical treatment (i.e., no ultraviolet radiation) if               
          the bag carries a bar code indicating that the bag is not                   
          approved.                                                                   


               In our opinion, 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 Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721                 
          F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.               









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007