Appeal No. 2004-1779
Application No. 09/851,639
hinge structure disclosed by Brown stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure. Thus,
even if Brown is assumed for the sake of argument to be analogous
art with respect to the claimed invention (the appellant urges
that it is not), the combined teachings of Brown and either
Rendall or Adams ‘356 would not have rendered obvious the subject
matter recited in claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2
through 4, 6 and 7, as being unpatentable over Rendall in view of
Brown, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 8, and dependent claims 9 and 10, as being
unpatentable over Adams ‘356 in view of Brown.
As Adams ‘865 does not overcome the above noted deficiencies
of Rendall and Brown relative to parent claim 1, we also shall
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 5 as being unpatentable over Rendall in view of
Brown and Adams ‘865.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007