Appeal No. 96-3340
Application 08/363,087
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 appellants' 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). Since all the limitations of independent
claim 1 are neither taught nor suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejection of appealed claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 1 are neither taught nor suggested by
the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of appealed claims 10-
13, 18 and 19 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 10-13, 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007