Appeal No. 96-2189
Application 07/969,731
and second state as recited in Appellants' claim 1. 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 at 902, 221
USPQ at 1127. "Obviousness may not be established using
hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg., supra.
We find that Matsko teaches in column 14, lines 41-52,
that Figure 5 shows a visual protection curve representation
42, 47, 48a and LED indicators 140-143 having a first state in
response to a trip signal associated with the visual
protection curve representation. However, Matsko fails to
teach that the LED indicators 140-143 have a second state in
response to adjusting of said adjustable predetermined
function through said input means. In column 5, lines 15-59,
Yalla teaches that the LEDs 71 and 72 (shown in Figure 1)
prompt an operator to select a relay element function and
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007