Appeal No. 96-4080
Application 08/396,541
1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72
(CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, 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 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing
W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
We fail to find any suggestion in the prior art to modify
Sedra's NAND gate to obtain Appellant's claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007