Appeal No. 97-0315
Application 08/336,181
has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic
means to replace the manual activity which has accomplished
the same result involves routine skill in the art.” The
Examiner relies on In re Venner and Bowser, 262 F.2d 91, 95,
120 USPQ 192, 194 (CCPA 1958), for authority. [Answer, page
4]. However, the Examiner does not shed any light on how the
facts of this case fit those in Venner, and we also do not see
how. We note that one of the very objects of the invention is
to provide a power supply that does not require manual
switching of the high voltage terminals. To design the
voltage multiplier circuit as a unitary structure and to
provide means so that it can be moved in an intact condition
between a first position and a second position would have
involved using the blueprint of Appellant’s invention. That
is impermissible. 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 Fitch, 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.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007