Appeal No. 97-0345
Application 08/363,094
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.,
supra, citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
We find that all claims recite the absorption
spectroscopy device and sample cell which are not found in the
applied prior art. Therefore, we have not sustained the
rejection of claims
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007