Appeal No. 95-2879
Application 08/085,657
787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). To that end, the examiner must show
that some objective teaching or suggestion in the applied
prior art, or knowledge generally available in the art, would
have led those of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of
the references to arrive at the claimed invention. Pro-Mold
and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Fine,
supra; Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 297 n. 24, 227 USPQ 657, 67 n. 24 (Fed. Cir.
1985). It is impermis-sible for the examiner to use the
applicant's specification as an instruction manual or template
to piece together the teachings
of the prior art. In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473,
5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Contrary to the examiner’s argument, we do not find any
teachings in the McLamore reference as to the equivalence of
alkyl and phenyl groups, or alkyl and aryl groups. Nor do we
find these groups to be adjacent homologs, in the traditional
sense of the word, or to be structurally similar. In fact,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007