Appeal No. 2000-0895
Application No. 08/754,797
containers. In our view, the substitution of the filters
disclosed in Parker and Knight for the cartridge 238 shown in
Magnusson’s Figure 7 would require significant reconstruction
of the primary reference. We fail to perceive any suggestion
in Magnusson, Parker or Knight which would have motivated one
of ordinary skill to make such a wholesale change in the
Magnusson structure, except the hindsight accorded one who
first viewed the appellants’ disclosure. This, of course, is
impermissible. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We have also carefully reviewed the VanderBilt patent
additionally relied upon by the examiner in support of the
rejection of independent claims 22, 28 and 42, but find
nothing therein that makes up for the deficiencies of
Magnusson, Parker or Knight noted above. It therefore is our
conclusion that the combined teachings of Magnusson, Parker,
Knight and VanderBilt fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of independent
claims 22, 28 and 42, and, it follows, of dependent claims 23
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007