Appeal No. 1997-0758
Application No. 08/140,658
at column 1, lines 45-50 (supplemental answer-page 6). We
agree with Appellants, and see no rational or motivation to
combine these references.
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 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, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing
W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
Clark provides liquid flow to record/print
information, and controls the flow with electrode voltage bias
to change the liquid/fluid viscosity. Clark does not “radiate
acoustic energy through the electrorheological fluid such that
droplets ...are ejected when a lower electric field is applied
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007