Appeal No. 1998-2360
Application No. 08/604,976
and negative blade exposures for a given blade unit. What
the examiner seems to have done was to arbitrarily combine
one of the positive exposure blades in Welsh=s second
example with the negative exposure blade in the third
example to create a new example with the hindsighted
benefit of appellants= disclosure. Hindsight reconstruction
of the prior art, however, is clearly improper.
In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 443, 230 USPQ 313, 316
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the final analysis, Welsh teaches exposures for
only two blades. Additionally, this reference lacks a
teaching of a plural blade unit having a positive exposure
blade and a negative exposure blade. Thus, apart from a
general suggestion of progressively increasing the blade
exposures from the guard end of the blade unit to the cap
end of the blade unit, Welsh contains no teaching or
suggestion of where a third blade should be placed in
relation to the blades in his two-blade embodiments.
In this regard, there are three possibilities for
locating the third blade in relation to the two blades in
Welsh=s third example. First, the third blade may be place
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007