Appeal No. 2002-1408
Application No. 09/228,076
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). According to
our reviewing court:
It 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. 199).
It is our view that this is exactly what occurred in the present case. In passing, we point
out that Allbright, which was cited for teaching vertical adjustment of a volleyball net,
supports the net by “one-piece standards mounted in the ground,” so it fails to eliminate
the deficiency in the combination of QUIK SET and Albach.
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of the applied references fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in
claim 1, and we will not sustain this rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2-12, which depend
therefrom.
The Rejection Based Upon Dyagesis, QUIKSET, Townsend And Allbright
In this rejection the examiner finds that Dyagesis discloses all of the elements
recited in claim 1 except for the platform and ladder, the vertical adjustment means for
the net, and the pivotal mounting of the masts to an overhead structure. The first two of
these limitations are not recited in claim 1. The examiner concludes that in view of
Townsend it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007