Appeal No. 1999-0349
Application 08/621,379
Neither the references relied upon by the examiner, nor the
examiner’s asserted well known prior art teaches providing a
reflection film between the polarization-direction changing
layer and also providing an antireflection film on the inside
of the inner glass plate as claimed. It is the claim as a
whole which must be compared with the prior art to which the
subject matter pertains. In our view, from all of the above,
we find that the only suggestion for modifying Hashimoto in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations 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 W. L. Gore Inc. &
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). Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or
in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.
Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing W. L. Gore Inc. &
Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ
303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “It is impermissible to
Page 11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007