Appeal No. 2003-1327
Application 09/375,713
(19). In this regard, appellants further assert (brief, page 10)
that the examiner’s proposed combination would require the
Donovan device to be completely reconfigured and that such
extensive modification of the Donovan device would impermissibly
change the operation of the tractor tire transport holder
therein. In particular, appellants contend that providing
Donovan’s device with a stable base and then adding a separate
dolly to permit movement of the device would not make any sense,
and would make Donovan’s device unsatisfactory for its intended
use as a completely mobile transport device.
Having considered the two applied patents to Donovan and
Amstutz, we share appellants’ view that there is no motivation,
teaching or suggestion in the applied references, whether
considered individually or collectively, for the examiner’s
proposed combination thereof. In our opinion, the examiner has
used impermissible hindsight derived from appellants’ own
teachings in seeking to combine selected portions of the base
structure and dolly arrangement of the spring compressor stand in
Amstutz with the mobile tractor tire transport holder of Donovan.
In that regard, we note that, as our court of review indicated in
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007