Appeal No. 2000-1010 Page 6
Application No. 08/951,402
1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned
against employing hindsight by using the appellants’ disclosure
as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention from the
isolated teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Grain Processing
Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d
1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
From our perspective, the examiner’s rejections appear to be
premised on impermissible hindsight reasoning. On the record of
this appeal, it is our view that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter defined by the appealed claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the stated rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007