Appeal No. 95-3943
Application 08/050,318
in the factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967). Our reviewing court has
repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using the
applicant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed
invention from the isolated teachings in the prior art. See,
e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co.,
840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Having carefully reviewed the disclosures of each of the
references applied by the examiner in the rejection of the claims
on appeal in light of the comments of both the examiner and the
appellant, we find ourselves in agreement with the appellant's
position as expressed in pages 2 through 4 of the reply brief
that nothing in the teachings of the references would have
suggested or made "obvious" their combination in the manner
proposed by the examiner. In particular, it is apparent that
Pülz discloses a vertically adjustable surface 5 utilizing a pair
of linkage means each having two parallel links 11, 12. However,
the means for adjusting the height of the surface includes a
pair of slotted scissors linkages 14, 17 that are respectively
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007