Appeal No. 1997-0243
Application 08/168,976
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 Fitch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re
Gordon, 773 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 1087, 37 USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Rejection using Crus and Knuth
After discussing Crus and Knuth individually, the
Examiner asserts [answer, page 5] that "it would have been
obvious ... to incorporate the collating of Knuth in the
single enforcement procedure of Crus for defining referential
constraints between data tables ...."
Appellants argue [brief, pages 7 to 9] about the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007