Appeal No. 2002-1620 Page 11
Application No. 09/504,416
Claims 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 require in one way or another the pressure release
valve (i.e., Bauer's valves 51, 52, 57, 58) to include a spring biasing an inertial mass.
However, this limitation is not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, one
skilled in that art would have understood Bauer's valves 51, 52, 57, 58 to be solenoid
actuated as depicted in Figures 4 and 5. As such there is no need to provide a spring
to prevent operation of the device in a non-collision situation since the solenoids
already prevent operation of the device in a non-collision situation. In our view, the only
suggestion for modifying Bauer in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the
above-noted limitation 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 the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 5, 8 to 13 and
16 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007