Appeal No. 1998-3162
Application 08/453,149
obviousness over Mohri, which is an inappropriate standard of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a). See generally, Rouffet, supra (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or
principal 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); W.L. Gore & Associates
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“To imbue one
of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention . . . when no prior art reference or references
of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to . . . hindsight . . . wherein that which only
the inventor taught is used against its teacher.”).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Pennie & Edmonds
1155 Avenue Of The Americas
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007