Ex parte EHRLICH - Page 6

          Appeal No. 96-3263                                                          
          Application No. 08/363,594                                                  

          assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in            
          the factual basis for the rejection.  See In re Warner, 379 F.2d            
          1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.           
          1057 (1968).  Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned                  
          against employing hindsight by using the appellant's disclosure             
          as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention from the                
          isolated teachings of 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).                                                

               With this as background, we will first analyze the prior art           
          applied by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1 on appeal.              

               ANCRA teaches Part No. 43451-11 (page 19) for use with                 
          either a Series A or E track (page 17).  Part No. 43451-11 is               
          disclosed as a tracking fitting (coupling clip member) releasably           
          insertable through an aperture in either the Series A or E track.           
          The coupling clip member includes an articulating locking                   
          structure comprising an opening selectively closed in a locked              
          position by a pivotal gate.  The opening is arranged to receive             
          therein a portion of the aperture in either the Series A or E               
          track when the gate is selectively pivoted away from the opening            


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007