Appeal No. 2000-0110
Application 08/818,447
that, therefore, 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).
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not set
forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a conclusion
of prima facie obviousness of the method recited in any of the
appellants’ claims.2 Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s
rejections.
2 The examiner does not rely upon Okazaki ‘856, which is applied only to dependent
claims 12 and 15, for a teaching which remedies the above-discussed deficiencies in Shiramizu,
Themy and JP ‘478.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007