Ex parte MCCAUL et al. - Page 7




          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