Appeal No. 1997-1907 Page 11
Application No. 08/265,369
Cir. 1988); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645,
648 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We note that the mere fact that the prior art may be
modified to reflect features of a claimed invention does not
make the modification(s) per se obvious. In this regard,
appellants’ invention cannot be used as an instruction manual
or template to piece together the teachings of the prior art
so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 23 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Because we
reverse on this basis, we need not reach the issue of the
sufficiency of the asserted showing of unexpected results
(brief, pages 7 and 8). See In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688,
2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007