Appeal No. 1997-2247 Page 7
Application No. 08/259,798
art due to time efficiency for applying voltage into a memory
array." (Examiner's Answer at 3.)
“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.L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “It is impermissible
to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or
‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so
that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992)(citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885,
1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
We also note the following principles from In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(exemplary citations omitted).
The range of sources available, however, does not
diminish the requirement for actual evidence. That
is, the showing must be clear and particular. See,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007