Appeal No. 2000-1637 Page 5 Application No. 09/002,808 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). In that regard, we fail to see any suggestion, teaching or motivation in the applied prior art to have modified Eckerlin's device to have utilized a fluid cylinder to move his valve member (i.e., end portion 24). Moreover, all the claims under appeal require that the claimed dump valve be capable of handling a pressure of at least 500 p.s.i. The examiner's position (answer, pp. 4-6) with regard to this limitation is that Eckerlin's device is capable of withstanding a pressure of at least 500 p.s.i. and the operating pressure is an obvious design expedient. However, the examiner has failed to produce any evidence to support this position. In our view, Eckerlin's device cannot be said to be inherently capable of handling a pressure of at least 500 p.s.i. in his passage 12. Additionally, while thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007