Appeal No. 1997-4282
Application 08/164,608
different problem, i.e., distortion of a doctor blade support
member. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The record indicates that the
motivation relied upon by the examiner for combining the
references so as to produce the claimed invention comes from
appellants’ disclosure of their invention in the specification
rather than coming from the applied prior art. Thus, the
record indicates that the examiner used impermissible
hindsight in rejecting appellants’ claims. See W.L. Gore &
Associates 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). Consequently, we reverse the examiner’s
rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Carvill in view of DE ‘620 is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007