Appeal No. 1997-3027
Application 08/301,926
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 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., Inc. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995); cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996),
citing
W. L. Gore & Assocs. Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
As pointed out above, since there is no evidence in
the record that the prior art suggested the desirability of
replacing the two diodes of APA with a single diode, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 13.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007