Appeal No. 2006-1922 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/207,519
adhesive (col. 2, lines 20-23). Because Kostial does not
disclose the odor retarding layer to be disposed on the inner
surface of the face textile, and Pearson is directed to
preventing contact with toxic materials and is not related to
odor retardation, we find that an artisan would not have been
motivated to have provided the inner surface of the outer layer
of the pet bed with the layer of Pearson, absent appellants’
disclosure. “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, 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, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “It is impermissible to
use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’
to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the
claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991)).
From all of the above, we find that the combined teachings
of Kostial and Pearson fail to establish a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007