Appeal No. 1998-0510
Application 08/742,519
different from that of the claimed container that the only
reason for modifying DeCarlo is improper hindsight gleaned
from Appellants' disclosure. The bag in Hickinbotham has
nothing to do with capturing overflow of a fill material.
Moreover, there is no conceivable reason why the bag in
Hickinbotham should be made of light transmissive material
since its function is not to permit observation of a fill
material.
Appellants further argue that "no person skilled in the
art would have utilized the disclosed structure [of Patel] in
the manner suggested by the Examiner in the absence of
hindsight reconstruction" (Br6).
We agree that there is no apparent motivation to use
Patel in combination with the other references absent
hindsight.
The Examiner has assembled the claimed subject matter
from bits and pieces of the references where the only apparent
motivation or suggestion comes from Appellants' disclosure and
not from the references or the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art. We conclude that the Examiner has failed to
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007