Appeal No. 1999-0286 Page 11
Application No. 08/777,413
to make the selection made by the appellant. Obviousness
cannot be established by combining the teachings of the prior
art to produce the claimed invention, absent some teaching,
suggestion or incentive supporting the combination. The
extent to which such suggestion must be explicit in, or may be
fairly inferred from, the references, is decided on the facts
of each case, in light of the prior art and its relationship
to the appellant's invention. As in all determinations under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the decision maker must bring judgment to
bear. It is impermissible, however, simply to engage in a
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, using the
appellant's structure as a template and selecting elements
from references to fill the gaps. The references themselves
must provide some teaching whereby the appellant's combination
would have been obvious. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18
USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). That
is, something in the prior art as a whole must suggest the
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007