Appeal No. 1997-3358 Page 9
Application No. 08/477,742
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the claimed limitations. “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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984)). The mere fact that prior art may be modified as
proposed by an examiner does not make the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability thereof. In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, the examiner admits, “Choy does not show the data
path test circuitry for testing the path ....” (Examiner’s
Answer at 7.) Although Eikill “includes two processing
devices, identified as 18 and 20,” col. 4, ll. 10-11, the
examiner fails to identify any teaching of testing the
processing devices. Noting that Eikill only teaches testing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007