Appeal No. 1998-3054
Application 08/770,888
examiner relies upon the appellant’s admission that it was
known to mix water into superheated steam to desuperheat it,
but has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered a device which is capable of mixing two
or more fluids but is uniquely designed for mixing a low
viscosity fluid into a high viscosity fluid such as a polymer
melt, to be suitable for mixing water and steam. The
motivation relied upon by the examiner for using King’s
apparatus to desuperheat steam comes solely from the
description of the appellant’s invention in the specification.
Thus, the examiner used impermissible hindsight when rejecting
the claims. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393,
396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, we reverse
the examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over King
in view of the appellant’s admitted prior art on pages 1-2 of
the specification is reversed.
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007