Appeal No. 96-3704
Application 08/216,474
not expressly show an integrated circuit provided on the load
beam within the monocoque region. The Examiner further states
that Morikawa teaches providing an integrated circuit on a
load beam. On page 5 of the Examiner's answer, the Examiner
argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to provide an integrated circuit chip on the
suspension load beam of Hashimoto as taught by Morikawa. The
Examiner reasons that the modification would have been
motivated in order to reduce external noise interference
within the lead wires as expressly suggested by Morikawa.
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., 73 F.3d at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007