Appeal No. 1998-0618
Application 08/288,194
were to decide to decrease Rothfjell’s 45E angle, why would
one stop at 10E. Nothing in Rothfjell (nor Kado) suggests
additional photographs at decreased angles, nor a lower limit
of the claimed 10E. Only Appellants’ disclosure makes these
suggestions.
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. 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.
As pointed out above, there is no teaching or
suggestion of record to take images at the claimed 10E/40E
9-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007