Appeal No. 95-1515
Application 08/027,656
hardly be inclined to combine any of the first group of
references (Vitou, Black, Mumpower and Wyller) with the second
group of references (Ramsdell, Papritz, Sayanagi and Murphy).
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addition, 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). In addition, the Federal Circuit reasons in Para-
Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1088-89, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007