Ex parte SHRINKLE et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 1997-1174                                                        
          Application 08/353,681                                                      

               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              
          or suggestions of the inventor."  Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS                 
          Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.              
          L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,                 
          1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.                                              
               As pointed out above, we see no motivation to combine                  
          Fennema with Christner.  Although both references address the               
          disk art, Fennema’s track correction signal from optical                    
          sensors has no relation to the asymmetry correction of a                    
          magnetoresistive head signal.  Since there is no evidence in                
          the record that the prior art suggested the desirability of                 
          such a combination, we will not sustain the Examiner’s                      
          rejection of independent claim 12.                                          


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007