Appeal No. 2002-0503 Page 8
Application No. 09/089,698
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). 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 rejections appear 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.
Since the examiner has not established that any of the other
applied references would make up for the above-noted deficiencies
in the combined teachings of Oda and Watanabe, we will not
sustain any of the stated rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007