Appeal No. 1999-1055 Page 8
Application No. 08/571,342
is provided with regard to the relationship between the subject vehicle and those vehicles
immediately surrounding it. See columns 2 and 3.
As was the case with Kenue, even considering, arguendo, that it would have been
obvious to add the Gazis route planning system to the Secor vehicle as modified by
Kenue, and with the recognition that Gazis teaches interactive audio interface between the
vehicle operator and the route planning computer, we are at a loss to appreciate where
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found suggestion to incorporate into the audio
interactive computer system of Gazis the rearward-looking camera system of Secor and
the lane detecting system of Kenue, other than by virtue of the hindsight accorded one who
first viewed the appellant’s disclosure, which is not a proper basis for a rejection under
1
Section 103. The references disclose three separate systems, each with its own
objective and operable on its own, and we are not persuaded by the examiner’s
statements why one would even benefit from interaction with the others, much less that they
should be interconnected with an audio interactive personal computer and associated EE-
PROM and CD-ROM devices. The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified
1It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or
"template" to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is
rendered obvious. This court has previously stated that "[o]ne cannot use hindsight
reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate
the claimed invention" (citations omitted). In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007