Appeal No. 1997-2942
Application 08/281,958
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. System. Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit states that “[the] 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 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 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 311,
312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007