Appeal No. 1997-1215
Application No. 08/092,684
supply motivation, with nothing more than these bare
statements, we agree with Appellant. We see no reasoning by
the Examiner to combine the cited references.
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.
Since there is no evidence in the record of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007