Appeal No. 1998-2899
Application No. 08/632,687
In our view, the only suggestion for combining the
disparate teachings of Fellow’s Figure 1 and Figure 4
embodiments in the manner proposed by the examiner or for
modifying either the Figure 1 or the Figure 4 embodiment of
Fellows in view of Arkell 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).
We also disagree with the examiner’s determination that
the circumferential grooves 26 in Figure 4 comprise a means
extending substantially across a length of the cylinder for
connecting an interface of the cylinder and the printing
sleeve to a low pressure region. As we have interpreted claim
32, supra, the language “a means extending substantially
across a length of the cylinder for connecting an interface of
the cylinder and the printing sleeve to a low pressure region”
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007