Appeal No. 2001-2327 Page 10
Application No. 08/835,460
made integral without being molded to the plate 5 by vulcanization molding. In addition, it
is our opinion that there is no suggestion, incentive or motivation in the applied prior art to
have modified the admitted prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In that regard, it is
our view that the teachings of Kanda would not have provided any suggestion or motivation
to have modified the admitted prior art to make the selection made by the appellant due to
the disparate teachings of the applied prior art. The manner in which they are proposed to
be combined indicate, in our view,
that the examiner has engaged in an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the
appellant's invention using the claims as a template to selectively piece together isolated
disclosures in the prior art.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 7, and
claims 8 to 10 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 7 to 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007