Appeal No. 1997-0635 Page 6
Application No. 08/375,183
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). In addition, the Federal
Circuit has stated that "[the] mere 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
Fritch, 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).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-8, and reply brief,
pp. 1-3) that the applied prior art does not suggest the
claimed subject matter. We agree. Specifically, the
limitations of claim 4 are not suggested by the applied prior
art. In that regard, while various mosaic pieces of the
claimed invention are shown in each reference of the applied
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007