Appeal No. 96-2247 Page 10 Application No. 08/218,488 In summary, we see no motivation in the applied prior art, of why one skilled in the art would have modified the device of Wilde to have a shroud comprising two essentially perpendicular intersecting sets of fiberglass elements, wherein the open area between the fiberglass elements exceeds about 40% of the total shroud area. Thus, it appears to us that the examiner has engaged in a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. This, of course, is impermissible. Since the examiner's3 rejection was based upon an erroneous obviousness determination, the examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, we cannot sustain the4 examiner's rejection of appealed independent claim 1, or claims 2 and 3 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED 3 In re Fine, supra; In re Warner, supra. 4Note In re Rijckaert, supra; In re Lintner, supra; and In re Fine, supra.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007