Appeal No. 98-1204
Application No. 08/609,551
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).
It is our view that the only suggestion for the proposed
change is found in the hindsight accorded one who first viewed
the appellants’ disclosure, and therefore a prima facie case
of obviousness has not been established by the applied
references. In view of this, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 5.
Independent claim 8 also stands rejected on the basis of
Nickerson in view of Lloyd. In the preamble, this claim
expresses the invention as being a spreader bar “for
connection to a body supporting member,” and goes on to
require that the spreader bar body be “curved longitudinally
outwardly relative to the body supporting member when
connected thereto” (emphasis added). The examiner has applied
the same rationale here that was used in combining Nickerson
and Lloyd in the rejection of claim 5, and we find it to be
unacceptable on the same basis we advanced against it there.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007