Appeal No. 96-1476
Application 08/186,515
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.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311,
312-13. We find no suggestion in the prior art as to why one
of ordinary skill in the art would find it desirable to locate
the channel of Steinke on the threaded portion in the form of
a slit.
For these reasons we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
Appellants' claim 6 contains the same limitation,
"pressure-introducing channel being formed as a slit which
interrupts said threaded section and extends over the threaded
section along an axis of the spark plug", lines 10-13. We
will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 for the same
reasons, supra.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007