Appeal No. 1999-2566
Application 08/868,935
prior art could be modified as proposed by the examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner must explain why the prior art
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
desirability of the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at
1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84.
The examiner has not explained why the applied references
themselves would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, the desirability of substituting Holmes’
transfer method for that of Steidinger. Instead, the
motivation relied upon by the examiner comes solely from the
description of the appellants’ invention in their
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 rejection over the
combined teachings of Steidinger and Holmes.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007