Appeal No. 2000-1754
Application No. 08/748,893
the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue nor
provide a reason from some teaching, suggestion or implication in
the prior art why the skilled artisan would have been led to
modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 5) that the examiner has relied
solely upon hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the
prior art, and we must agree. Since the examiner has set forth
no teachings, suggestions, or line of reasoning for the
combination, what else could the examiner have relied upon other
than impermissible hindsight? In light of this, we have no
choice but to find that the examiner has failed to present a
prima facie case of obviousness. Consequently, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 23 over Feigenbaum,
Ardezzone, and Hawthorne.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007