Appeal No. 1996-4167 Page 8
Application No. 08/324,369
and (3) a blocking position in which extrudate flow to both the tap and the first filter is
blocked and flow through the first flow passage is blocked.
Accordingly, we reach the conclusion that the only suggestion for modifying
either Shirato, Lin or the Admitted Prior Art to arrive at the claimed invention stems from
hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure, not from the
teachings and suggestions set forth in the applied prior art. 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 6,
9, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007