Appeal No. 2001-1567 Page 7
Application No. 09/044,455
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Kennedy in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellants' own disclosure. The use of such hindsight
knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L.
Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553,
220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984). It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18 and 19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007