Appeal No. 1998-3402 Page 8
Application No. 08/190,929
in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be established by combining
the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
invention, absent some teaching or suggestion supporting the
combination." ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732
F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). And
"teachings of references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so." Id. Here, it is clear to
us that the prior art contains none. In fact, the advantages
of utilizing a distribution manifold connected to a plurality
of waste treatment units and a waste source as recited in the
claims under appeal are not appreciated by the prior art
applied by the examiner.
Instead, it is quite apparent to us that the examiner
relied on hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination.
However, our reviewing court has said, "To imbue one of
ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in
suit, when no prior art reference or references of record
convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the
insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007