Appeal No. 1999-1891
Application No. 08/421,089
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “Obviousness may not
be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordinance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Therefore, we conclude that the suggested combination is
improper. We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 4 and its dependent claims 5-16 and 27.
With respect to independent claim 17, noting that it also
has a structure corresponding to the structure claimed in
claim 4 and that the examiner relies on the same combination
of Winstel
and Hamakawa, we conclude that the rejection of claim 17 and
its dependent claims 18-26 and 28 based on the combination of
Hamakawa and Winstel is improper and not sustainable.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 4-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007