Appeal No. 96-1389
Application No. 07/925,615
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992), wherein the court stated:
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).
We think that is precisely what has occurred here. There
is simply no cogent reason for combining the reference
teaching in the manner proposed by the examiner other than
through the use of impermissible hindsight knowledge gleaned
from first reading appellant’s disclosure. Under such
circumstances, the § 103 of claims 1 and 2 cannot be
sustained.
The Piez reference applied in the rejection of claims 4
to 6 and 8 has been carefully considered but does not make up
for the deficiencies of Pinckard, Shelef, Malmström, Plugge
and Cottrell. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4 to 6 and
8 also cannot be sustained.
In that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007