Appeal No. 96-0418
Application 08/051,321
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, Inc., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239,
citing W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 302,312-13.
We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Gaskill, Andros and Rosen. Likewise, we
reverse the rejection of claim 16, which is the method claim
corresponding to claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gaskill,
Andros and Rosen. Since claims 9, 10, 15, 19 and 21 depend on
claims 1 and 16 and are rejected under the same ground, their
rejection is also reversed.
With respect to claim 11, it stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Gaskill, Andros and Rosen, and further in
view of Shrader [answer, pages 6 to 7].
We first note that claim 11 depends on claim 1 and
contains at least the features of claim 1 discussed above. We
find that Shrader discusses the general concept of “Q” of an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007