Appeal No. 2004-1089
Application No. 09/770,302
In proposing to combine Hagelfeldt and Metzler to reject
claim 29, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious
to combine Hagelfeldt’s collapsible cot with Metzler’s
teachings of physically extending horizontal sheet
material to cover guard rails or sidewall[s] because
Metzler’s bedding is proposed for use as a guard sheet.
The extension provides a desirable feature of
eliminating gaps between the horizontal surface of a
cot and its supporting sidewalls, thereby providing a
safety and comfort feature to more fully contain and
partially shield the user of [the] cot [final
rejection, page 5].
This reasoning is flawed, however, because any gaps which
might exist between the horizontal surface and side walls of
Hagelfeldt’s crib are eliminated by the extensions 42 and 43 on
the lower ends of Hagelfeldt’s side wall fabric 40. Thus, there
is no need to modify Hagelfeldt’s crib in view of Metzler for the
purpose stated by the examiner. Moreover, this proposed
modification ostensibly would complicate the desired conversion
of the crib to a dressing table. In this light, it is apparent
that the only suggestion for combining the disparate teachings of
Hagelfeldt and Metzler in the manner advanced by the examiner
stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant’s
disclosure. The use of such hindsight knowledge to support an
obviousness rejection is, of course, impermissible.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007