Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
obviousness is based on impermissible hindsight analysis
“wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against
its teacher.” W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Consequently, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 10 based on the combination of Fujimoto and Kanakarajan,
or in the alternative, based on the combination of Fujimoto,
Saito (JP4-6841) and Kanakarajan.
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007