Appeal No. 1999-2812 Page 14
Application No. 08/724,049
second axis different from the first axis about which the
first bar rotates. In our view, when the teachings of the
applied prior art are combined together in the manner set
forth by the examiner (answer, p. 5, lines 3-10), the first
and second bars would be rotating about the same axis. In our
view, the only suggestion for further modifying Spencer in the
manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitation (answer, p. 5, lines 11-18) 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 16 to 28.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007