Appeal No. 1996-4025
Application 07/995,591
'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540,
1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984). In addition, the Federal Circuit states that
"[t]he 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 modifi- cation." 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).
We fail to find that the Examiner has shown any
reason for making the modification of the Hedlund system. In
particular, Hedlund teaches in column 4, lines 18 through 43,
that the system operates according to the synchronous optical
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007