Appeal No. 1997-0402
Application 07/843,685
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 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.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The remaining claims on
appeal, dependent directly or indirectly from claim 1, also
contain the above limitations discussed in regard to claim 1
and thereby, we will not sustain the rejection as to these
claims.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 6, 8 through 15 and 18 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007