Appeal No. 1996-1309
Application 08/053,174
determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be
considered as a whole; there is
no legally recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-
Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 822 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (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, 312-313.
We fail to find any teaching or suggestion in either
Kato or Samoto that would have led those skilled in the art to
provide a plurality of channels that are grouped on a radially
inward portion of said annular surface and wherein the
channels have a selected depth which is greater than the depth
of the adjoining channel which is radially outward therefrom
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007