Appeal No. 95-3288
Application 08/148,020
electrically insulative alumina to shield the getter from
radiation emitted by an arc tube in a high pressure sodium vapor
lamp as recited in Appellants' claims. 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 fail to find any suggestion in Charles that suggests
that the Charles ceramic has the needed characteristic to use
as the claimed shield in a lamp. Charles is only concerned with
optical translucent transmission properties which are not prop-
erties needed to solve the shielding problem. Therefore, we
find that the Examiner has failed to show that the prior art
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007