Appeal No. 1998-2551 Page 14
Application No. 08/787,624
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 3-4) that the rejection
is improper since neither Hong or Altman teach the use of the
claimed loop fabric (i.e., a loop fabric made from a series of
core and effect yarns held spaced from one another by adhesive
on the loops of adjacent yarns holding the yarns in spaced
relationship). The appellant then concludes that it cannot be
seen "how Hong and Altman can be combined to anticipate [sic,
render obvious] the [claimed] invention without the hindsight
use of Applicant's specification to make such combination."[6]
We find the appellant's argument unpersuasive for the
following reasons. First, the appellant's argument is not
based upon the rejection before us. Claim 48 has been
rejected based on the combined teachings of Hong, Altman and
Eschenbach. The appellant has argued that claim 48 is not
rendered obvious from the combined teachings of Hong and
6The 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).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007