Appeal No. 2000-1314 Page 8
Application No. 09/109,279
portion as set forth in claims 1 to 9, 13 to 17, 19 to 21 and
28 to 30.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying either
Gutentag or Kawanishi 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 the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 1 to 9, 13 to 17, 19 to 21 and
28 to 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
It follows from our decision to reverse the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 to 9, 13 to 17, 19 to 21 and 28 to 30
under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007