Appeal No. 2001-1609 Page 9
Application No. 09/031,778
In our view, the combined teachings of Wacker and Maguire would not have been
1
suggestive of the claimed invention. In that regard, while Maguire clearly teaches a
workstation having an annunciator unit provided with a power supply therein, Maguire
teaches providing such an annunciator unit on the top of the workstation. Thus, absent the
2
use of impressible hindsight, we see no suggestion, motivation or teaching in the applied
prior art to have positioned an annunciator unit with a power supply therein within Wacker's
column 16.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 11, and
claims 12, 13 and 15 to 18 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.3
1The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
2Hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure 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).
3We have also reviewed the references to Leonard and Cope but find nothing therein which makes
up for the deficiencies of Wacker and Maguire.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007