Appeal No. 98-0972
Application No. 08/609,550
unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so.
See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Here, we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or
incentive in any of the three references cited against claim 1
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the Haase spreader bars in the manner proposed by the
examiner, inasmuch as the function of extending the hammock at
each end already is being performed by Haase’s vertically
curved spreader bars. Why, then, would one of ordinary skill
in the art have been motivated to make such a change, which
simply would result in a different curvature being imparted to
the spreader bar without any apparent change or improvement in
function. Our reviewing court stated in In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as
an instruction manual or "template" to piece
together the teachings of the prior art so that the
claimed invention is rendered obvious. This court
has previously stated that "[o]ne cannot use
hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among
isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate
the claimed invention" (citations omitted).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007