Appeal No. 1998-0158 Page 7
Application No. 08/427,587
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)). “When determining the
patentability of a claimed invention which combines two known
elements, ‘the 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)).
Here, the examiner fails to identify a permissible
suggestion to combine Yohda and Nanba to obtain the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007