Ex parte STROLLE et al. - Page 6




              Appeal No. 1997-0795                                                                                     
              Application 08/087,362                                                                                   




                     The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he 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, 733 F.2d 900,                  
              902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is further established that "[s]uch a                      
              suggestion may come from the nature of the problem to be solved, leading inventors to                    
              look to references relating to possible solutions to that problem."  Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v.              
              Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir.                          
              1996), citing In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1054, 189 USPQ 143, 149 (CCPA                               
              1976)(considering the problem to be solved in a determination of obviousness). The                       
              Federal Circuit reasons in Para-0rdnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l Inc., 73 F.3d                  
              1085, 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822                      
              (1996), that for the determination of obviousness, the court must answer whether one of                  
              ordinary skill in the art who sets out to solve the problem and who had before him in his                
              workshop the prior art, would have been reasonably expected to use the solution that is                  
              claimed by the Appellants.  However, "[o]bviousness may not be established using                         
              hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the invention."   Para- Ordnance                 
              Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, 73 F.3d                                                                     


                                                          6                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007