Appeal No. 1997-3887
Application 08/449,204
relying on appellants’ invention in reaching the conclusion that the invention encompassed by claims 7, 8,
10 and 11, all dependent directly or ultimately on claim 6, would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in this art in view of Suzuki, of Mammino, and the “prior art.” See Rouffet, supra (“hindsight” is
inferred when the specific understanding or principle within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not
been explained); Dow Chem., 837 F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531-32 (“The consistent criterion for
determination of obviousness is whether the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art that this process should be carried out and would have a reasonable likelihood of success,
viewed in the light of the prior art. [Citations omitted.] Both the suggestion and the expectation of
success must be founded in the prior art, not in applicant’s disclosure.”). Thus, we reverse these
grounds of rejection.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007