Appeal No. 2000-0954 Page 6
Application No. 08/972,206
and other articles made from textile fibers) with the bath of
Woods in the manner proposed by the examiner 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 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, and claims 2 and 3 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 4 and 5
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of
Castrantas.
Claim 4 reads as follows:
A method of cleaning poultry nest pads which
comprises: soaking poultry nest pads soiled with hardened
poultry manure in an aqueous solution until the manure
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007