Appeal No. 98-1048
Application 08/516,245
connection between the head and body of the doll seemingly
would have led the artisan away from the proposed
modification. We therefore conclude that the examiner has
engaged in an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the
invention set forth in claims 1 and 4 by using these claims as
a blueprint to selectively pick and choose from among isolated
features in the prior art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1 and 4, or of claims 2, 3 and 5
through 8 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over
Rovex in view of Takara.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007