Appeal No. 97-3007 Page 6
Application No. 08/161650
to supply 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 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).
In the instant case, the examiner found that Medler
teaches forming a structural tube by layering FRP (fiber-
reinforced plastic) around a mandrel or support. The examiner
relies on Randolph, Allen’563, Kittaka, Hale or Fondiller for
teaching utilizing an inflatable bladder as a mandrel.
The examiner concludes:
To have utilized an inflatable bladder as a
mandrel to form the initial support for the
Medler structural tube, with the inflatable
mandrel subsequently being removed upon
hardening of the tube, thus allowing for
easy removal of the support or mandrel, as
is desired by Medler, would have been an
obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill
in the art as taught by any of Randolph, at
30, or Allen’563, at 32, or Kittaka et al.,
at 10, or Hale, at 18, 60, or Fondiller, at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007