Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
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).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the Examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
The Examiner has rejected all the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over various combinations of Motorola, Henderson, White,
Ryoichi and Marian. Appellants have elected that claim 4
stands or falls with claim 2, claims 18 to 20 with 17, and
claims 28, 29 and 31 with claim 1. According to Appellants,
all the other claims are patentably distinct from each other
[brief, page 6].
We consider the various rejections in the same order as
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007