Appeal No. 2001-0730 Page 7
Application No. 09/221,543
Prior Art discloses all the claimed limitations except for a
hexagonal passage (i.e., a hollow passage of non-circular
cross-section extending from the first end of the bolt toward
the second end of the bolt). The examiner then set forth the
pertinent teachings of Flood, Kemper and Patyna and concluded
that in consideration of the teachings of the applied prior
art "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to associate an internal wrenching surface (hollow
passage) with the prior art bolt shaft in order to prevent
bolt rotation during manipulation."
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree. In our view,
the only suggestion for modifying the Admitted Prior Art in
the manner proposed by the examiner to arrive at the claimed
subject matter 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. That is, we fail to see
sufficient suggestion or motivation in the teachings of Flood,
Kemper and Patyna for a person of ordinary skill in the art at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007