Appeal No. 2001-1076 Page 6
Application No. 09/231,677
fit closely in the recess formed in the flat surface of the
metal shoe located in the region near the tip where a nail
cannot effectively be driven into the hoof when the horseshoe
is nailed to the hoof and a layer of cement between and
joining the stud to the wall of the recess. In our view, the
only suggestion for modifying the applied prior art to meet
the above-noted limitations stems from hindsight knowledge
derived from the appellant's own disclosure. 1
Coleman teaches a horseshoe in which the upper plate A,
the lower plate B and the intervening elastic strip C are
permanently connected together by any convenient number of
plain or screwed rivets e. Thus, at best, it is our view that
Coleman would have made it obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have
modified the horseshoe of Phreaner to include any convenient
number of plain or screwed rivets to permanently connect
Phreaner's metal body 10 and laminated pad 11 together.
1The 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007