Appeal No. 2005-1945 Page 9
Application No. 09/777,510
have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to have modified the concave posterior surface of any of Feingold's lenses
to be a concave posterior surface which is part of a non-spherical surface that is rotation
symmetric around the optical axis of said optical part, wherein the intersection between
said non-spherical surface and any plane containing the optical axis represents a
flawless curve free from discontinuities and points of inflection.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Feingold in the manner proposed
by the examiner to meet the above-noted limitation stems from hindsight knowledge
derived from the appellants' own disclosure. The use of such hindsight knowledge to
support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course, 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007