Appeal No. 2004-1021
Application No. 09/707,450
Even if Wieting is assumed for the sake of argument to be
analogous art with respect to the subject matter on appeal (the
appellants urge that it is not), the disparate teachings of
Wycech and Wieting would not have suggested the combination
advanced by the examiner, which presumably involves replacing
Wycech’s core with Wieting’s sleeve. The Wycech and Wieting
structures play dissimilar roles in different environments, and
are suitably constructed to fulfill these roles. For example,
Wycech teaches that the core disclosed therein, while providing a
reinforcing function, must also be flexible enough to accommodate
the bending or shaping of the torsion bar as well as the twisting
which occurs during use. In contrast, Wieting indicates that the
sleeve disclosed therein must be strong enough to resist bending
and/or kinking. Similarly, Wycech intends the core to have
substantial vibration damping and acoustic attenuation
characteristics, while Wieting shows no concern with such
properties. In this light, it is evident that the examiner’s
rationale for combining Wycech and Wieting, which has no basis in
the fair teachings of these references, stems from hindsight
knowledge derived from the appellants’ disclosure. The use of
such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection is,
of course, impermissible.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007