Appeal No. 95-4853 Page 9
Application No. 08/019,335
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has
repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using the
appellants' 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).
We disagree with the examiner's conclusion of obviousness
of the claimed method, based on the combined teachings of Masui
and Suzuki as the evidence relied upon. From our perspective,
this rejection appears to be premised on unsanctioned hindsight
reasoning.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007