Appeal No. 2000-2115
Application No. 08/633,564
(Spec., Page 7, lines 9-24) or Kriegler. Like appellant
(brief, pages 12-14), we observe that Shea, the secondary
references, and the APA relied upon by the examiner may
disclose certain individual components of the claimed subject
matter (e.g., a vehicle having both front-wheel-drive and
rear-wheel-drive as broadly set forth in the preamble of claim
1 on appeal (Shea) and certain torque detecting or calculating
means), but neither the secondary references, the APA, nor
Shea provide any teaching or suggestion that such known
elements from such disparate systems can or should be combined
in a manner so as to result in appellant's claimed subject
matter. In this regard, we view the examiner's attempt to
combine the applied prior art in the manner asserted in the
examiner's answer (pages 5-8) to be a clear example of the
examiner utilizing appellant's own disclosure in the present
application as a blueprint for piecing together unrelated
components of the various references and APA. Having
concluded that the examiner has engaged in a hindsight
reconstruction of appellant's claimed subject matter, it
follows that we will not sustain either of the examiner's
grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007