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 -7-7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007