Appeal No. 1999-0955
Application No. 08/687,872
a suggestion to provide Hall with a rigid and non-deformable
porous application element, as recited in claims 16 and 19.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Hall in the
manner proposed by the examiner to meet the limitations of
claims 16 and 19 stems from hindsight knowledge derived from
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
rejection of claims 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Hall and Berghahn or of claims 21 through 29, dependent on
claim 19.
The following rejection is entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claims 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27/19, 27/21, 27/22, 27/23,
27/26, 28/27/19, 28/27/21, 28/27/22, 28/27/23, 28/27/26 and 29
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by de
Laforcade.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007