Appeal No. 2001-1786
Application 08/420,796
eliminating other taught features, is to reconstruct the
invention using the claims as a template for applying the prior
art. We agree with appellant that this constitutes an improper
reconstruction of the claimed invention using hindsight gained by
the claimed invention. Accordingly, we do not sustain this
rejection of the claims on appeal.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 28, 30-35 and 37-47 is
reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-15-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007