Appeal No. 97-1836
Application No. 08/324,818
with the patient’s skin, nor does it teach a one step
installation in those embodiments in which the absorbent
component is removable.
The mere fact that the prior art structure could be
modified does not make such a modification obvious unless the
prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The examiner has offered very sparse explanations of
his rationale in constructing the rejection and, even when
viewing the situation in the most charitable light, we fail to
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Sims
dressing in the manner proposed by the examiner. From our
perspective, the only suggestion for accomplishing this is
found in the luxury of the hindsight afforded one who first
viewed the appellants’ disclosure. Suggestion arising from
the appellants’ disclosure is, of course, impermissible as the
basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007