Appeal No. 2004-0763 Page 6
Application No. 09/758,641
unintentional separation of Amonett’s locking pin from the control shaft or of the need or
desirability of combining the retention means of Yamane with another retention means,
such as that taught by Amonett. We thus reach the conclusion that the only suggestion
for putting the selected pieces from the references together in the manner proposed by
the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed the
appellants' disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 7 and 17 or claims 2-6, 8-11 and 18-22 depending therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007