Appeal No. 1996-3229
Application 08/271,477
Lastly, the Examiner’s contention that the gates of
104 and 105 [of Gabara] would be connected through the
respective voltage generators [of VCP and VCN] to the “supply
voltage” and “ground” would not meet the claim 25 requirement
of the first and second potentials being applied to the
respective gates.
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 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 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 25 since Gabara does not teach, suggest or make obvious
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007