Appeal No. 2001-1680
Application 08/890,471
a limitation to be taught or suggested in the reference.
Kotzab, 217 F.3d at 1370, 55 USPQ2d at 1316.
As further pointed out by appellant, Schrader utilizes a
forced draft system to cause movement of air. Appeal Brief,
page 6. In contrast, movement of air can only be created in
Hart’s device through the use of an induction type fan which
exerts a pulling force to cause the flow of air outwardly into
the atmosphere. See Hart, column 1, lines 56-62. While the
examiner “holds” that adding a fan to a forced draft system
such as that of Schrader would not destroy the system, she has
failed to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated, in the first instance, to modify a forced
draft system to include features from an induced draft system.
In sum, we conclude that the examiner’s motivation for
combining Schrader and Hart can only be based upon improper
hindsight reasoning.4 See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
4We note that Vross (see supra, Ground of Rejection 2, page 3)is relied
on for its disclosure of a mobile system for removing fumes of a roofing
product wherein a flexible conduit is in fluid communication between the fume
container and the filtering/incinerating housing (see Examiner’s Answer, page
6. Locke (see supra, Ground of Rejection 3, page 3)is relied on solely for a
teaching of powering a fan by means of a gasoline engine (see Examiner’s
Answer, pages 6-7). Neither reference remedies the aforementioned
deficiencies in the examiner’s proposed combination of Schrader and Hart.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007