Appeal No. 2000-1993 Page 6
Application No. 09/157,130
by the examiner. In that regard, while Brudy does teach a
reflecting device having a plurality of flat reflective side
wall surfaces and a non-reflective flat top and bottom cap
portions parallel to each other which do not overhang the
reflective flat side wall surfaces of the central portion, we
fail to find sufficient motivation therein for an artisan to
have modified Bright Eyes in the manner set forth by the
examiner in the rejection under appeal (answer, pp. 3-4) for
the reasons set forth by the appellant in the brief (pp. 5-8).
Instead, it appears to us that the examiner relied on
hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination. However,
our reviewing court has said, "To imbue one of ordinary skill
in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no
prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest
that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught
is used against its teacher." W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). It is essential
that "the decisionmaker forget what he or she has been taught
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007