Appeal No. 96-3499 Page 7
Application 08/271,569
deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has
repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using an
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-Prods., Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
We disagree with the examiner's conclusion of obviousness
of the claimed method, based on the Wiewiorowski patent as the
sole evidence relied upon. In our judgment, this rejection is
predicated on the impermissible use of hindsight.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007