<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction \u2014 an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.\u00a0W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc.,<\/em>\u00a0721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed.Cir. 1983)<\/a>. The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.\u00a0Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil,<\/em>\u00a0774 F.2d 1132, 1138, 227 USPQ 543, 547 (Fed.Cir.1985)<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.<\/em>, 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996).<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because the Board did not explain the specific understanding or principle within the knowledge of a skilled artisan that would motivate one with no knowledge of Rouffet’s invention to make the combination, this court infers that the examiner selected these references with the assistance of hindsight. This court forbids the use of hindsight in the selection of references that comprise the case of obviousness.\u00a0See\u00a0<\/em>In re Gorman,<\/em>\u00a0933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1885, 1888 (Fed.Cir. 1991)<\/a>. Lacking a motivation to combine references, the Board did not show a proper\u00a0prima facie<\/em>\u00a0case of obviousness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n