Appeal No. 2004-1223 Page 11
Application No. 09/842,142
1999). The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (and cases cited therein).
In our view, due to the disparate nature of the vehicles disclosed by Suto and
Liebert, the combined teachings of Suto and Liebert would not have suggested any
modification to Suto's steering rod 58. As such, the subject matter of claim 1 would not
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art from the combined teachings of Suto and Liebert. The only possible suggestion
for modifying Suto in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitation 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.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1,
and claim 2 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007