Appeal No. 2004-0364 Page 7
Application No. 09/943,293
Based on our analysis and review of Chen and claim 1, it is our opinion that one
difference is the limitation that the nozzle has two wings and each wing has a groove in
which one of two sides of the base plate is slidably received. Based on our analysis
and review of Chen and claim 4, it is our opinion that one difference is the limitation that
the nozzle is slidably engaged with the two grooves of the base plate.
As set forth above, a prima facie case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. In this case, it is
our opinion that there is no evidence in the combined teachings of Chen and Perkins
that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chen to arrive at the
claimed invention. Thus, it is our view that the only suggestion for modifying Chen in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted limitations 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007