Appeal No. 1999-2643
Application 08/512,395
prime consideration. Nonetheless, this general desire for
high performance does not justify the particular reference
combination proposed by the examiner which involves a
modification of the admitted prior art heat exchanger in view
of Katterjohn, and then a further modification of the initial
modification in view of Magari. Having carefully evaluated
the differences between the invention recited in claim 1 and
the applied prior art in light of the fair teachings and
suggestions of this prior art, we are satisfied that the
examiner has engaged in an impermissible
hindsight reconstruction of the invention by using the
appellant’s claims as a blueprint to selectively piece
together isolated disclosures in the prior art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 and 4 which depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art
in view of Katterjohn and Magari.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007