Appeal 2006-2253 Application 10/464,595 ANALYSIS Dhont does not include any suggestion to make the carrying case fire resistant. Robbins does not disclose that the materials utilized to form the fire resistant safe can be used to form a carrying case. In fact, as the insulation in Robbins in comprised at least in part of concrete, it would appear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to include the insulation in the carrying case because such inclusion would increase the weight and thus reduce the portability of the case. We must conclude that the only suggestion for combining such disparate structures in the manner proposed by the Examiner stems from an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the Appellant's invention wherein the claims have been used as a template to selectively piece together isolated disclosures in the prior art. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain either of the Examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims because both rejections rely on the combination of Dhont/Robbins and we find no motivation or suggestion to make the combination. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013