Appeal No. 96-2391
Application 08/002,286
of the sleeve as in Opresko and along the sidewall as in Larson.
There is no evidence on the record of this case to suggest that
the artisan would desire to emit electrons in both the axial and
radial directions simultaneously. In the absence of any
incentive to consolidate heat in the closed end of the sleeve and
in the sidewall at the same time, we can see no reason why the
artisan would have attempted to combine the teachings of Larson
with the teachings of Opresko.
In summary, we are of the view that the only suggestion
for combining the teachings of Opresko with the teachings of
Larson comes from appellants’ own specification and a desire to
recreate the claimed invention. 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. One cannot use hindsight
reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in
the prior art to deprecate the claimed invention. In re Gorman,
933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138,
227 USPQ 543, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since we are of the view
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007