Appeal No. 2000-1469
Application 08/808,789
the desirability of the modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the
only suggestion for the proposed modification of the Haraga
panel in view of Mori stems from an impermissible hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed invention wherein the examiner
has used the appellants’ claims as a template to piece
together the teachings of the prior art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 20 and 21 as being unpatentable
over Haraga in view of Mori.
Inasmuch as the examiner’s application of Trout, the
admitted prior art and Molin does not cure the above noted
shortcomings of the basic Haraga-Mori combination, we also
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 22 and 23 as being unpatentable over Haraga in view of
Mori and Trout, of claims 24 through 27 as being unpatentable
over Haraga in view of Mori and the admitted prior art, or of
claims 28 and 29 as being unpatentable over Haraga in view of
Mori and Molin.
As a final matter, the examiner might be well advised to
obtain a full translation of Japanese Patent Document 8-90080,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007