Appeal No. 1997-4389 Page 12
Application No. 08/546,925
Claims 8 to 11 require the cutting mechanism to include a
wiper impregnated with silicone oil for wiping the rotary
cutter to prevent build up of adhesive on the rotary cutter,
"the wiper being formed of an open-cell material." It is
clear from our review of the applied prior art that these
limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art. While
the examiner found (answer, p. 12) that Jones sleeve 68A is of
an open cell foam, we fail to find that teaching in Jones. In
fact, Jones specifically teaches that the material is a closed
cell foam (see e.g., column 2, lines 64-66; column 3, lines
17-22; column 9, lines 7-9 and 15).
In our view, the suggestion for modifying the applied
prior art to meet all of the above-noted limitations comes not
from the combined teachings of the applied prior art but stems
from hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants' own
disclosure. As stated previously, the use of such knowledge
to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
impermissible. It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 8 to 11.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007