Appeal No. 2001-1198 Page 9
Application No. 09/233,899
the arcuate series of teeth 28a (i.e., the arcuate rack). In
our view, the only suggestion for modifying Miller to provide
a spring means as recited in claim 1 stems from hindsight
knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure. The
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).
Since all the limitations of claim 1 are not suggested by
the combined teachings of Miller and Wright for the reasons
set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim
1, and claims 2 to 5, 7 to 13 and 19 dependent thereon, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007