Appeal No. 2001-0019
Application No. 09/240,197
system to expel bales from the bale chamber (as set forth in
claim 1), or the addition of a second opening in Fincham to expel
formed bales (as set forth in claim 7), or the modification of
Fincham’s log splitter so that both the log splitter and the
baler are powered by the same hydraulic cylinder and piston
arrangement (as set forth in claim 24). In effect, a major
overhaul and reworking of the apparatus of Fincham would be
required, and, as we see it, only impermissible guidance from
appellant’s own disclosure, and not the evidence of obviousness
itself, would have provided the motivation for such a major
overhaul. As our reviewing court has announced:
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.] [In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992).]
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007