Appeal No. 2000-1307 Page 11
Application No. 08/474,314
assembly of the chair without the need for tools since the construction of the chair of
Thaden and the chair of Burton are vastly different such that it would not have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have provided design features of Burton in the chair of Thaden. Moreover, Thaden's
chair does not require tools to assembly the chair since the chair is molded as a one-
piece unitary structure.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Thaden in the manner proposed by
the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1,
3 to 29, 43 to 48, 58 to 63, 67 and 69 to 77 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