Appeal No. 97-1784 Application 08/011,068 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. Upon reviewing Rubinstein and Collins, we fail to find any suggested desirability of modifying Rubinstein and Collins to obtain a digital clock wave form generator or a method for generating a clock signal as recited in Appellants’ claims 1 through 7 and 12 through 20. In regard to the rejection of claims 8 through 11, Appellants argue that Rubinstein and Collins, together or individually, fail to teach or suggest a lock window unit wherein the extent of propagation through the lock window circuit indicates the deviation of the propagation delay of the delay 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007