Appeal No. 1998-2838 Page 8
Application No. 08/591,801
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Taylor 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). It follows that we
cannot sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6,
10-14 and 17-20. 3
CONCLUSION
3We have also reviewed the reference to Pitzen
additionally applied in the rejection of claims 10-12 but find
nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Taylor
and Lin discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007