Appeal No. 96-3156
Application 08/304,333
Further insight into the examiner’s position is gleaned from
the following statement, offered in response to appellants’
argument:
One of ordinary skill [would] have known to provide the
combined valve of Steiner et al with a range of
position[s] which provide communication between the
master cylinder and the artificial pedal feel device so
as to allow the communication of the brake to be
modulated. The ordinary level of skill in the art is
far beyond merely attaching the two valves of Steiner
together as suggested by appellant [sic, appellants] on
page 17 of the brief. One of ordinary skill in the art
would know that the appropriate port connection must be
maintained so as not to destroy the functions of
Steiner et al. [answer, page 9]
OPINION
Our court of review has repeatedly cautioned against
employing hindsight by using appellant’ disclosure as a blueprint
to reconstruct the claimed invention out of 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). That court has also cautioned against focusing on
the obviousness of the differences between the claimed invention
and the prior art rather than on the obviousness of the claimed
invention as a whole as § 103 requires. See, e.g., Hybritech
Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1383, 231
USPQ 81, 93 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 USPQ 947 (1987).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007