Appeal No. 2002-0993 Page 21
Application No. 09/368,781
However, this determination has not been supported by any evidence that would have
led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention.
There is no evidence in the rejection before us in this appeal that would have
made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to have modified Root's threadedly connecting means (i.e., securing-screws J) to be
a non-threadedly connecting means. Accordingly, it is our view that the only possible
suggestion for modifying Root in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the
above-noted limitation stems from the impermissible use of hindsight knowledge
derived from the appellants' own disclosure.
Since the subject matter of claim 15 is not suggested by Root for the reasons set
forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 15, and claims 16, 19, 20, 22 to
25, 27 and 28 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 38 to
44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed; the decision of the examiner
to reject claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007