Appeal No. 97-4062 Page 6
Application No. 08/590,049
request from a CPU for diagnostic instructions and providing
alternative instructions to the CPU.
“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 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984)). The mere fact that prior art may be modified in
a manner suggested by an examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability thereof. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, the examiner erred by not identifying a sufficient
suggestion to modify Warchol. The examiner admits that the
reference “does not explicitly teach that [its] reset
instruction is intercepted and substituted with an alternative
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007