Appeal No. 1996-2015
Application No. 08/181,539
improving homogenization, as suggested by Eppenbach ‘178 (answer, pages 6-7).
Appellants argue this is a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention (brief, pages 10-11).
We wish to note that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based
upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
the applicants’ disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395,
170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). We believe that to be the case here.
Lee explicitly states that other mixers may be used providing they fulfill certain requirements,
e.g., rapid and complete mixing on demand (col. 6, lines 7-18; col. 7, lines 63-73; col. 11, line 74 - col.
12, line 1). Appellants have not argued, let alone established, that China’s mixer cannot fulfill the
requirements of Lee’s mixer. Rather, appellants argue that Lee does not provide a specific working
example using China’s mixer. It is axiomatic that the entire disclosure of a reference must be evaluated
and that a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples. Moreover, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the mixer of China to provide more efficient
mixing in view of China’s disclosure that the centrifugal force of his mixer aids in the production of high
velocity shear force (see e.g., page 3, lines 101-110).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007