Appeal No. 09/938,479 Page 5 Application No. 2003-2047 against employing hindsight by using the appellant’s 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 proposed combination of Louis and Rodgers appears to be premised on impermissible hindsight reasoning. In this regard, the examiner has not fairly established that one of ordinary skill in the art of designing and building chart recorders of the type described in Louis would have found in the teachings of Rodgers concerning low cost application digitizers for monitoring the position of a pen or other instrument relative to a grid, a suggestion for modifying the chart recorder of Louis in the manner proposed by the examiner. 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. Consequently, we reverse the stated rejection.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007