Appeal No. 2003-1575 Page 8
Application No. 09/420,306
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Bleeker in the manner proposed by
the examiner to arrive at the claimed invention stems from 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
independent claim 4, and claims 2 and 3 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007