Appeal No. 1998-0235 Page 8
Application No. 08/709,764
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Uhrig in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
condom spring limitation 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. 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). It follows that we cannot
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 and 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007