Appeal No. 2002-1053 Page 16
Application No. 09/702,981
In addition, it is our opinion 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 substituted Wood's
tensioning roll for the spring-biased movable dancer arms of Simmons in Simmons'
cushioning conversion machine. In that regard, we agree with the appellants (reply
brief, pp. 1-3) that the applied prior art does not establish that Wood's tensioning roll
and the spring-biased movable dancer arms of Simmons are "art recognized
equivalents." Moreover, even if Wood's tensioning roll were substituted for the spring-
biased movable dancer arms of Simmons in Simmons' cushioning conversion machine
this would not result in the claimed constant-entry device being biased to an operating
position and movable between the operating position and a tension yielding position
since Simmons' constant entry roller 128 would still be unmovable.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Simmons to meet the above-noted
limitations 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).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007