Appeal No. 96-1058
Application 08/211,143
structure recited in the clause [3] of claim 8, namely “a
plurality of rigid connecting means, each said connecting means
being secured to a respective bracing ring to project from said
ring for mounting in an opening of a building to provide an
access path for an occupant of the building to a respective
access opening for entry into said stocking.” Finding in Schuett
“a connecting means (A-E) for bridging an opening of a building
with an access opening adjacent the ring portion of his
[Schuett’s] escape stocking,” the examiner determines that, “It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Nordtvedt to comprise connecting means as claimed to his
ring portion (11) to bridge openings of a building to the access
openings adjacent his ring portions” (answer, p. 3).
We shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8
through 10 and 12 through 17.
Our court of review has repeatedly cautioned against
employing hindsight by using the applicant's disclosure as a
blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention out of isolated
teachings in the prior art. See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v.
American Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788,
1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988). That court has also cautioned against
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007