Appeal No. 1997-0523
Application 08/082,576
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 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).
Analysis
At the outset we point out that we consider the rejection
of claims along the subgroups in which Appellants argue them
in the body of the brief. We apply the above precedents to
our analysis.
Claims 1 to 8
After considering the rejection of these claims [answer,
pages 4 to 7] and Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 8 to 16
and reply brief, pages 1 to 6], we are of the view that the
Examiner is using Appellants' invention as a road map to take
bits and pieces of the two references, Yang and Sugawara, to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007