Ex parte NELSON et al. - Page 6




          Appeal No. 1998-2294                                       Page 6           
          Application No. 08/546,298                                                  


               In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the                     
          Admitted Prior Art in the manner proposed by the examiner to                
          meet the above-noted limitations stems from hindsight                       
          knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure.  The                 
          use of such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness                   
          rejection under 35 U.S.C.                                                   
           103 is, of course, impermissible.  See, for example, W. L.                
          Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,                  
          1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469              
          U.S. 851 (1984).                                                            


               For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the                   
          examiner to reject claims 1-6, 10-15 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C.              
           103 is reversed.                                                          



















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

Last modified: November 3, 2007