Appeal No. 96-2043 Application 07/990,514 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). With this as background, we turn to the rejections of the claims on appeal. a. Claims 1 and 3-7 Claim 1 calls for an angioplasty system including an elongated catheter having proximal and distal ends and a longitudinal lumen open to the distal end for receiving a guidewire, a plurality of fiber-optic waveguides contained in 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007