Appeal No. 96-0733
Application 08/173,805
such a modification. Further in this regard, it is clear to us
that the Chan components, although made of plastic or rubber,
were not intended to be elastomeric, with the exception, of
course, of sealing diaphragm 223.
Our reviewing court stated in In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an
instruction manual or "template" to piece together the
teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious. This court has
previously stated that "[o]ne cannot use hindsight
reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated
disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed
invention" (citations omitted).
It appears to us that the only suggestion for combining the
references in the manner proposed by the examiner in the present
case is found via the luxury of such impermissible hindsight.
This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007