Appeal No. 1997-4217
Application No. 08/307,178
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 1087, 37
USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W.L. Gore &
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007