Appeal No. 2000-0816
Application No. 08/938,875
surface of Suisse as being generally parallel to the second
beveled gullet, while at the same time stating that this
planar surface must still be modified in some manner to
achieve the positive rake angle that Ohlsson finds beneficial.
It is this picking and choosing of features from the
individual references that is the hallmark of impermissible
hindsight. In the examiner’s combination of references, the
generally planar surface of Suisse must be maintained to be
generally parallel to the second beveled gullet while at the
same time this generally planar surface must be changed to
form the positive rake angle. We agree with the appellant
that the examiner is using the claimed invention as an
instruction map to piece together the teachings of the prior
art. Consequently, we can not agree that the prima facie case
of obviousness tendered by the examiner rest on a well-founded
evidentiary basis.
We have further considered the patents of Lucki an
Chaconas, but we find therein no teachings or suggestion that
would remedy the difficulties we have found in the rejection
based on Suisse and Ohlsson taken together. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejections of all claims on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007