Appeal No. 96-1882
Application No. 08/214,013
and a concave lower surface in place of the solid wooden seat,
(2) annular walls to define the unobstructed edge receiving
groove rather than a cutout groove in the underside of the solid
wood seat, and (3) first and second sets of radially oriented
support members which together span the width of the underside of
the seat except for the continuous groove. From our perspective,
the only suggestion for combining the references in the manner
proposed by the examiner is found in the hindsight accorded one
who first views the appellant’s disclosure, which is improper.
As 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 is our view that the combined teachings of the two
applied references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in the
claim. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection.2
2We note that the appellant submitted with the Appeal Brief
evidence of commercial success of his invention (Exhibits A, B
(continued...)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007