Appeal No. 2000-0534 Page 7
Application No. 08/929,543
likewise, Steen's teaching of one net that is shaped very
similar to the shape of the Figures 12-18 embodiment of
Epply's net does not provide the necessary motivation that
would have led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention
since Steen does not teach or suggest that the vertical
intersection of the two sections of the one net extend between
the top edge and the bottom edge of the net.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Epply in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's 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 Assocs., 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 to 5, 7, 8 and 20 to 23.
New grounds of rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007