Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed subject matter using
appellant’s own disclosure as an instruction manual or template to
piece together the isolated disclosures and teachings of the
applied prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered
obvious. This, of course, is improper. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 6-8, 10, 11, 16-19, 21-25, 27, 35, 36, 76-83,
85-88 and 91-96 as being unpatentable over Enders in view of
Ketchpel.
We have also carefully reviewed the teachings of Palm further
applied in the § 103(a) rejection of claims 9, 34, 84 and 97, and
the teachings of Brucker further applied in the § 103(a) rejection
of claims 89 and 90, but find nothing therein that makes up for the
deficiencies of Enders and Ketchpel discussed above. Accordingly,
we also shall not sustain the examiner’s rejections of these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Summary
Each of the examiner’s rejections is reversed.
The decision of the examiner finally rejecting the appealed
claims is reversed.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007