Appeal No. 2000-0869 Page 5
Application No. 09/150,225
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Rosenberg
in the manner proposed by the examiner (final rejection, pp.
3-4) to replace Rosenberg's stuffed material B, such as cotton
batting or other suitable material, with Knight's practice
golf ball 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 21, 24, 32 and 34 to 45.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007