Appeal No. 96-0439
Application 07/956,497
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. Upon reviewing Appellant’s
admitted prior art shown in Figures 9 and 10 and Nakatani, we
fail to find any suggested desirability of modifying
Appellant’s admitted prior art shown in Figures 9 and 10 to
provide a third outlet-terminal group to obtain Appellant’s
invention as recited in claims 1 and 2.
In regard to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Appellant’s admitted prior art
shown in Figures 9 and 10 and Nakatani in further in view of
Ozaki, we note that the Examiner relies on Nakatani for the
teaching of a third outlet-terminal group. Thereby, we will
not sustain this rejection for the same reasoning as above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007