Appeal No. 97-0315
Application 08/336,181
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 1553, 220 USPQ at 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, we conclude that the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over APA is not sustainable. Since claims 2 through
17 all depend on claim 1 and hence each have at least the
limitation discussed above, their obviousness rejection over
APA is also not sustainable.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over APA is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007