Appeal No. 1997-0800
Application No. 08/382,926
position through at least a corresponding one of
said first and second rotated positions; (emphasis
added)
because Darroch does not have two ON states, an initial
position, and two corresponding rotated positions.
Kramer does not supply these missing limitations
since it was cited for its “direction sensor” (answer-page 4)
and it is unclear how one would combine Kramer with Robinson
and Darroch. Darroch has been used to replace Robinson’s
fingertip switches, 16a-16e, and now Kramer is proffered by
the Examiner to replace the same switches, 16a-16e. If Kramer
now replaces switches
16a-16e, what happens to Darroch?
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). "Obviousness may
not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007