Appeal No. 2000-1269
Application 08/756,349
from the applied prior art and 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 conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the invention recited in any of the appellant’s
claims. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007