Appeal No. 1997-4087 Page 8
Application No. 08/298,375
of said body portion, and being adhered to said
interior side surface portions thereof.
Giving the limitations their broadest reasonable
interpretation, each of the claims recites forming adhesive
receiving openings in both a print head body and an orifice
plate and bonding the two elements together, with the adhesive
extending into the openings in both of the elements.
“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 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984)). The mere fact that prior art may be modified in
a manner suggested by an examiner, moreover, does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability thereof. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007