Appeal No. 1997-4438
Application No. 08/173,431
network.” We agree with appellant’s argument because the
examiner has not successfully demonstrated the need for a
temporary buffer in the
real-time cable television system disclosed by Freeman. It is
impermissible to engage in hindsight reconstruction of the
claimed invention, using applicant’s structure as a template
to fill in the gaps. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18
USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our position that the evidence
adduced by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 14.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 14 and dependent claims 15 and 16. The obviousness
rejection of claims 17 and 18 is reversed because the
publication to Boisseau does not cure the noted shortcoming in
the teachings of Freeman.
In summary, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 20
are sustained, and the rejections of claims 14-18 are
reversed.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007