Appeal No. 96-1855
Application 07/953,807
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 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996), citing W.
L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Feb. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). We find no suggestion or
motivation in Bassetti for comparing display line data via a
line memory, as proffered by the Examiner. For this reason,
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and accordingly,
dependent claims 2 through 7.
-12-12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007