Appeal No. 97-0280
Application 08/192,839
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch,
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.
Upon reviewing Stevens and Dooley, we fail to find any
suggested desirability of modifying Stevens with Dooley’s
signature detecting method for isolating source of correctable
errors to obtain Appellants’ invention as recited in claim 1. We
note that Stevens teaches a method of fault location and
reconfiguration method in a redundant data processors
arrangement. As shown in Figure 2, the output of each of the
redundant data processors 1, 2 and 3 are supplied to a majority
voting circuit 7. In column 2, lines 24-37, Stevens discloses a
simple and straight forward manner of operation in which each of
the processors processes the same information and thereby the
outputs should be identical. In the event of one processor
operating incorrectly, there will still be two identical outputs
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007