Appeal No. 1995-5010
Application 08/116,261
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. The Examiner may not, because of doubt
that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has
repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using the
Appellant's 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). On the other hand, we are also guided by
the precedence of our reviewing court that the limitations
from the disclosure are not to be imported into the claims.
In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re
Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the Examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
Rejection of claims 1 to 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007