Appeal No. 2002-1968
Application No. 09/574,922
cannot suggest its use as a target as required by
Appellant's invention.
Appellant is of the view that the examiner has erroneously
rejected claim 45 based on impermissible hindsight, using the
teachings of appellant's own specification rather than
suggestions found in the applied prior art.
Having reviewed and evaluated the applied prior art
references to Wheeler and Motooka, we share appellant's
assessment of the rejection on appeal and the opinion that the
examiner's position regarding the purported obviousness of claim
45 represents a classic case of the examiner using impermissible
hindsight derived from appellant's own disclosure in an attempt
to reconstruct appellant's claimed subject matter from disparate
teachings and broad concepts purported to be present in the prior
art. In our view, there is no motivation or suggestion in the
applied references to Wheeler and Motooka which would have
reasonably led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
baseball glove of Wheeler and its oil receiving pocket (11a) in
the particular manner urged by the examiner so as to result in
appellant's claimed method.
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007