1 Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
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.
As pointed out above, the prior art teaches the
claimed concepts as known in parallel processor circuits.
However, various implementations of these concepts have
significant impact on the operational characteristics of the
final device. It is here that the prior art fails. Claimed
details of Appellant’s implementation are not shown or made
obvious by the prior art of record. Since there is no
evidence in the record that the prior art would have suggested
the implementation presented in Appellant’s claims, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1 15
1Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007