Appeal No. 1999-2783
Application No. 08/654,034
hunting blind structure mounted on an archery bow would have
logically commended itself to the inventor's attention in
dealing with his particular problem of a floating artificial
fish attracting habitat (i.e., a floating artificial weed
line) designed to float at the surface of a body of water.
Moreover, even if we were to assume for argument sake
that Hill was analogous prior art, we share appellant's view
that there is no motivation or suggestion in the applied
references which would have reasonably led one of ordinary
skill in the art to the examiner's proposed combination of
Fussell, Budge and Hill. Like appellant, it is our view that
the examiner has used impermissible hindsight derived from
appellant's own teachings to combine the totally disparate
subject matter of the submerged fish habitat of Fussell, the
apparatus for growing oysters of Budge and the archery bow
mounted hunting blind of Hill in an effort to arrive at
appellant's claimed floating artificial weed line. In this
regard, we note that, as our court of review indicated in In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n. 14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is impermissible to use the claimed
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007