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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007