Appeal No. 2005-0117 Page 10
Application No. 09/860,423
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present
instance, we are informed by the appellants' originally filed specification (p. 2) that the
present invention is directed to a simple, yet effective, abrasion-resistant protective
system for lengths of material such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. of the type used in
high abrasion applications. Holland teaches that his fabric has a high level of
tear-resistance, abrasion resistance, cut-and-stab resistance, and chemical and cold
resistance to improve the strength and durability of the fabric and thus falls at least into
the latter category of the Wood test, and logically would have commended itself to an
artisan's attention in considering the appellants' problem. Thus, we conclude that
Holland is analogous art.
Third, there is motivation, without the use of impermissible hindsight4, for a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Andrieu and
Holland so as to arrive at the claimed invention. Holland's clear teaching that a fabric
made of commercially available Spectra® fibers has minimal weight, increased abrasion
resistance, tear strength, and cut and stab resistance which overcomes the
disadvantages of polyester fabric covers provides, in our opinion, sufficient motivation
4 The use of hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure to
support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is impermissible. See, for
example, W. L. Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007