Appeal No. 2002-2107 Page 11
Application No. 09/160,085
rear surface of the primary support wall. Dependent claim 8 adds to parent claim 1 the
further limitation that the hanger portion is an angularly formed extension of the primary
support wall, and includes right angles so as to terminate toward the rear surface of the
primary support wall.
Clearly, the limitations of claims 7 and 8 are not taught by Williams. While both
McDougall and Carter teach the use of curved hanger portion and Marshall teaches the
use of an angularly formed hanger portion, we see no suggestion for modifying Williams
in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted limitations of claims
7 and 8 except for the 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 7
and 8 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