Appeal No. 2000-1488 Page 13
Application No. 08/826,832
The examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to provide compartments at
the rear corners of Denda's turn base 14 in view of the
teachings in Brocklebank (i.e., spaces 22a and 22b being
provided on opposite sides of counterweight 20a) and to
provide a counterweight cavity in the center of the rear of
Denda's turn base 14 in view of the teachings in Hughson. The
appellant argues that the applied prior art does not suggest
the subject matter of independent claims 1, 2 and 11. We
agree with the appellant. As in the previous rejection of
claims 1 and 2, we fail to find any suggestion for modifying
Denda in the manner proposed by the examiner to arrive at the
subject matter of claims 1, 2 or 11. Accordingly, we must
conclude that this rejection stems from the use of
impermissible hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's
own disclosure. In that regard, while Brocklebank may have
suggested providing Denda's machine with spaces such as those
disclosed by Brocklebank (i.e., spaces 22a and 22b) and
Hughson may have suggested providing Denda's machine with a
pocket containing a counterweight, it is our opinion that
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007