Appeal No. 2003-0811 Page 7
Application No. 09/285,290
Smith teaches utilizing GPS information to indicate binder location on a roadway and
then to dispense loose aggregate only on portions of the roadway having binder
thereon. Smith does not disclose any of the above-noted five limitations of the claimed
subject matter. Lastly, Gimenez teaches a position detection system for a railcar
utilizing both a global positioning system (GPS) and a beacon recording system.
Gimenez does not disclose any of the above-noted five limitations of the claimed
subject matter.
In our view, the only possible suggestion for modifying Sennott in the manner
proposed by the examiner to arrive at the claimed invention 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 at 1553, 220 USPQ at 312-13.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 14
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007