Appeal No. 96-1083
Application 08/150,099
[Answer, page 3]. We have reviewed Hartai and find that it
does not disclose any such geometrical relationship between
the discharge path and the internal diameter of the lamp
vessel. In fact, Hartai is silent on any specific geometrical
relationship other than a general statement that: “the
invention concerns luminous panels ... with luminous areas
which may have arbitrary geometry and extent and wherein their
length and shape essentially are limited by the geometry and
dimensions of the luminous panel.” [Column 1, lines 10 to 14].
There is no hint of selecting the claimed geometrical
relationship between the length of the path and the internal
diameter of the vessel. The Federal Circuit states that
“[the] mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.” In re Fitch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 773 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
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007