Appeal No. 95-2911
Application 07/814,693
sheet-metal forming the carriage so as to form a
unitary structure
as recited in Appellant’s claim 5.
Furthermore, we fail to find any suggestion of modifying
Kato to provide a carriage as recited in Appellant’s claim 5.
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., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing
` W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311,
312-13.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 5 and 8
through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007