Appeal No. 2002-2272
Application 09/375,712
a compacting device of the sort disclosed by Hollon. This
rationale advanced by the examiner for combining the references
stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellant’s disclosure. Second, even if the combination were
effected, the result would not meet the compacting apparatus
limitations in claim 9 under any reasonable interpretation of
these limitations or of Hollon’s disclosure of the compacting
apparatus.
Additionally, and in the same vein, the examiner’s finding
that Bergman’s material applicator 25, which is midway along the
length of truck 20, is supported adjacent the rear end of the
vehicle as required by claim 9 rests on an unreasonable
interpretation of both the claim and the Bergman disclosure.
Thus, the combined teachings of Bergman and Hollon do not
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in independent claim 9 and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 9, and dependent
claims 10 through 12, as being unpatentable over Bergman in view
of Hollon.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007