Appeal No. 1997-3276 Page 10
Application No. 08/478,567
“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), cert. denied, 519 U.S.
822 (1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)). “‘[T]he question is whether there is something
in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and
thus the obviousness, of making the combination.’” In re
Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “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)).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007