Appeal No. 95-0448
Application 07/825,632
evidence is provided beyond the instant disclosure. The prior
art of record does not show knowledge of the critical feature
of the invention; i.e., an addition of the DNA segments which
are responsible for
re-establishing xanthan gum production in an Xgs mutant. As-
the Federal circuit stated in Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic
Corp.,
81 F.3d 1566, 1570, 38 USPQ2d 1551, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996):
To draw on hindsight knowledge of the
patented invention, when the prior art
does not contain or suggest that knowledge,
is to use the invention as a template for
its own reconstruction - an illogical and
inappropriate process by which to determine
patentability . . . The invention must be
viewed not after the blueprint has been
drawn by the inventor, but as it would
have been perceived in the state of the
art that existed at the time the invention
was made. [citations omitted]
Although the level of skill in this art is high, we find
that the person of ordinary skill in this art would not have
been led by Rogovin’s teachings to resolve the differences
between the prior art and the claimed invention. Without a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007