Appeal 2007-2869
Application 10/286,535
degrees C (Answer 7). Therefore, the intensity of the magnetic field within the
coil structure is sufficient to cure the coatings of Sakayanagi. Accordingly,
Appellants’ mere conjecture that the induction assembly of McGaffigan is
incapable of heating the wound core of Sakayanagi to the point of curing the
coating is unpersuasive.
Second, Appellants’ Specification notes that “magnetic fields 66, 67 will
oppose each other and tend to cancel each other where the coils 60, 61 are
adjacent” (Specification 6:9-10). Therefore, if Appellants’ argument that the
adjacent fields, which oppose each other, result in the inability to cure the wound
core were correct, then Appellants’ claimed invention would be inoperable as
well. Appellants cannot have it both ways. Furthermore, as we found supra,
Appellants have not provided any evidence that the induction heating device of
McGaffigan is only capable of heating a workpiece to its Curie temperature. In
fact, McGaffigan suggests otherwise, by stating that Curie temperatures are
achievable, if desired.
Appellants contend the Examiner has relied on impermissible hindsight
reconstruction because the Examiner has not articulated an “objectively supported
motivation” (Appeal Br. 14). We disagree.
The use of hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is impermissible. See e.g., W. L. Gore and Assocs. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, obviousness judgments are necessarily based on
hindsight, but so long as judgment takes into account only knowledge known in the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013