Appeal No. 95-2399
Application 08/061,669
We agree that Palmer teaches the use of optically
transparent epoxy. However, Palmer is using adhesive to join the
sides of two optical fibers directly together. Palmer does not
teach an optical element or the use of adhesive to affix an
optical element to an end face of one of the connectors.
Appellants further argue on pages 4 through 6 that
neither Cammons, Bowen nor Palmer suggests the desirability of
making the combination. In particular, Appellants point out that
Cammons teaches away from using an adhesive to affix the optical
element to a connector plug end face.
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. 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,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007