Appeal No. 2005-0532
Application No. 10/152,877 Page 6
forming sides. Nor has the examiner fairly explained why adding
a mordant to an alleged non-image side1 of the support of Yutzy
would have been suggested by the applied references given that
Campbell teaches employing such a mordant in an image receiving
layer, not a non-image side of a support. Concerning this
matter, we note that Campbell discloses that an image receiving
layer containing the mordants is formed on the same side of the
support as the silver halide emulsion layer or on an entirely
different support. See, e.g., column 10, lines 27-32 of
Campbell.
It is well settled that the mere fact that prior art may be
modified to reflect features of the claimed invention does not
make the modification obvious unless the desirability of such
modification is suggested by the prior art. Our reviewing court
has repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using the
appellant’ 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).
1
1 We do not believe that Yutzy’s receiving layer side could
be considered as a non-image side of a support as that term is
used by appellant in their specification and claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007