Appeal No. 1999-2132 Page 10
Application No. 08/672,856
lower rollers 22 and 27 so as to accommodate a cushioning pad
therebetween. Further, we have carefully considered the
complete disclosure contained in the Mistyurik reference, but
are unable to discern any teaching or suggestion from
Mistyurik that the reliability of a work piece conveying
device can be improved by transferring the work pieces by
friction.
It is well settled that the teachings of the prior art
taken as a whole which must provide the motivation or
suggestion to combine the references. See Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988) and
Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227
USPQ 543, 550-51 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The only suggestion for
combining the diverse systems of the references in the manner
proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
derived solely from the appellants’ disclosure. The use of
hindsight knowledge to support a conclusion of obviousness is,
of course, impermissible. Therefore, we will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 13, 20
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007