Appeal No. 1996-4082 Application 08/179,238 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 claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). We agree with appellant that the reasoning of the obviousness rejection (see Answer, page 5) took into account knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, one would have to look to applicant’s disclosure for direction to place the collector region under the etch stop layer. Only appellant’s claims teach a collector region under an etch stop layer. In light of the foregoing, the differences between the subject matter recited in the claims and the references are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would not have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we shall reverse the standing rejection of claims 1 to 12 and 18 to 32 on appeal. REVERSED EROLL A. KRASS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007