Appeal No. 2006-1784 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/668,819
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Melichar. The examiner's findings in
regard to this rejection can be found on pages 4 to 5 of the answer. The examiner
recognizes that Melichar does not describe a sealed vent region having a cross
sectional area that is less than the defined cross sectional flow are as is required by
claim 1. Nonetheless, the examiner concludes:
To reduce the cross-sectional area of the vent region would
have been obvious in order to enable use of a stronger
spring [answer at page 5].
We agree with the appellants that there is no motivation to modify the Melichar
as contemplated by the examiner. Melichar does not teach that a stronger spring is
desirable. In fact, Melichar teaches that it is desirable to use a spring that has a lower
bias force (col. 4, lines 20 to 25). It is our view that the examiner's position in this
appeal represents a clear case of impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
invention based on appellant's own teachings.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007