Appeal No. 2002-0267 Page 11
Application No. 09/440,496
limitation regarding Minnesota, we do not agree with the positions and theories set forth
by the appellants. The analogous art argument has been dealt with above. In addition,
we point out that in a rejection under Section 103, it is not necessary that each and
every limitation in a claim be taught by a single reference. As should be apparent from
the guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard to rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the issue is what the prior art would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art, whose skill in the art cannot be ignored. It is our view that the requisite
teachings and suggestion to combine the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner are present in every case except for the claims containing the Minnesota
limitation. Regarding the argument that Penny Map does not comprise a “board,” we
point out that this was set forth in the synopsis provided by counsel for a third party,
which the appellants accepted in Paper No. 8 as “being accurate.” With regard to the
allegation that the rejections we sustained are based upon hindsight, we wish to note
that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based
upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which
was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212
(CCPA 1971). We believe that to be the case here.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007