Appeal No. 2002-0174 Page 6
Application No. 09/190,373
of the disparate wheels of those references. Also, the examiner
has not substantiated how the teachings of Hubbard (column 6,
lines 32-50 and figures 9-18) with respect to single and dual
nozzle outlet designs taken together with the teachings of Murphy
(paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4) with respect to a bifurcated
nozzle would have reasonably directed one of ordinary skill in
the art toward fashioning a nozzle outlet with three portions as
here claimed.
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
rejection appears 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007