Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,021
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 turn to the examiner's rejection
of independent claim 52 and claims 18 through 20, 23, 26, 27, 29,
30 and 53 dependent therefrom.
We agree with the appellants that all the limitations
recited in independent claim 52 are not met by the combined
teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Grefe, Weihe, Clague,
Sastri and Tardoskegyi). In particular, it is our opinion that
the combined teachings of the applied prior art fail to teach or
suggest moving a blade stack through a demagnetizing means and
thereafter, moving the blade stack through a pre-wash station, a
wash station, a rinse station and a final rinse station. In our
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007