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