Ex parte FLORIO et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1998-1616                                                        
          Application No. 08/570,633                                                  

          because Minten already blows compressed air against the                     
          substrate surface to unplug the holes of the board and to                   
          remove excess liquid dispersion from the face of the board, it              
          would not have been obvious to add another means (e.g.,                     
          Altenpohl’s foamed rolls) thereto for accomplishing                         
          essentially the same purpose, as the examiner seems to suggest              
          in explaining the rejection.  Based on these observations, and              
          our own careful analysis of the teachings of Minten and                     
          Altenpohl, we conclude that the modification of Minten                      
          proposed by the examiner is based on the use of impermissible               
          hindsight knowledged gleaned from appellants’ disclosure                    
          rather than on the reference teachings                                      

          alone.  This is improper.  See, for example, In re Fritch, 972              
          F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).                     
               Moreover, we do not agree with the examiner that                       
          Altenpohl’s rolls 6, 7, as illustrated in the drawing figure                
          thereof, would be viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art                
          as being “opposed” rolls, as urged by the examiner, when that               
          term is read in light of appellants’ specification.  In this                
          regard, it does not suffice that the offset rolls 6, 7 of                   


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007