Appeal No. 2000-0184
Application No. 08/955,226
Given the disparate nature of the problems confronted by the two Auxier patents and the fact that
Auxier ‘158 is specifically directed only to a combination of openings (64, 66) that relate to tip cooling
and passive clearance control for the blade (60) therein, appellant urges (brief, pages 8-12) that the
examiner has clearly resorted to impermissible hindsight to selectively pick and choose disparate
features in Auxier ‘158 and then attempted to modify the spanwise located cylindrical film holes (58) of
Auxier ‘268, distributed along the leading edge of the blade seen therein, to be diffusion holes having a
fan configuration like that required in claims 1 and 2 on appeal. We agree. Like appellant, it is our view
that the examiner’s position on obviousness in this appeal represents a classic case of the examiner
using impermissible hindsight in order to reconstruct appellant’s claimed subject matter. In that regard,
we share appellant’s view that there is no motivation or suggestion in the applied Auxier references
which would have reasonably led one of ordinary skill in the art to the examiner’s proposed
modification of the plurality of spanwise located cylindrical film holes (58) of Auxier ‘268 in the
particular manner urged by the examiner.
In this regard, we note that, as our court of review indicated in In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an
instruction manual or "template" to piece together isolated disclosures and teachings of the prior art so
that the claimed invention is rendered obvious. That same Court has also cautioned against focussing
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007