Appeal No. 1997-1247
Application 08/484,196
In Re Fitch, 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). “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 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. Lish. Gore & Assocs., v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 220 USPQ 303, 311 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claims 25 to 33
We consider claim 25 as the representative claim. After
reviewing the positions of the Examiner [answer, pages 4 to 6]
and Appellant [brief, page 3], we are convinced that Koyama,
the base reference used for the obviousness rejection, does
not disclose the claimed limitation of [see figs. 8 and 9 of
the specification for the configuration] “plurality of
parallel and spaced apart slot trenches ... located at the
crossings of diagonals with respect to said rows and columns.”
The trenches in Koyama, 15a and 15b, form a continuous grid-
like set of grooves and, in such a configuration, the claimed
phrase “slot trenches located at the crossings of diagonals”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007