Appeal No. 95-1238
Application 08/009,406
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be established using
hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at
1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
We note that neither Ardent nor Utt teaches that it is
desirable to only determine the combined amount of titanium oxide
and calcium carbonate, the amount of clay and the total amount of
a the three materials, titanium oxide, calcium carbonate and
clay. Arendt teaches in column 2, line 40 through column 5, line
15, a process of determining the amounts of titanium oxide,
calcium carbonate and clay by using three separate x-ray energy
beams. Arendt further teaches that the primary advantage of the
invention is, instead of the usual six wavelengths that would
normally be expected for determination for three materials, the
Arendt system only requires absorption measurements on three
wavelengths. Arendt further emphasizes this point in column 5,
line 16 through column 6, line 20, by providing the general
equations for determining three different elements of unknown
quantity by passing three different monochromatic energies
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007