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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007