Appeal No. 2000-2168
Application 09/130,383
turn applicable to the combination with Gray, that Laird's
teaching of contact adhesive in any way indicates a hook and pile
fastener. As such, we do not agree with the examiner's view
expressed at page 6 of the answer that "a hook and pile fastener
is one type of contact adhesive." Essentially, the examiner's
reasoning is based on backward reasoning and therefore improper
hindsight because the examiner has not taken prospectively the
teachings in Laird of contact adhesive to persuasively indicate
to us along with any other teachings and suggestions of all the
other references in combination for each of these rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of a hook and pile fastener. The
examiner's reasoning just quoted is reversed from what an
acceptable line of reasoning must be within 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
stated, it is clearly based upon prohibited hindsight.
In view of the foregoing, we have sustained the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 3 on appeal. We have reversed the
rejection of dependent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As such,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-3 on appeal is
affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007