Appeal No. 1998-0219 Page 8
Application No. 08/265,000
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.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551-53, 220 USPQ 303, 311-13
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). “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 Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (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.” Id. at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1784, (citing In
re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991)).
Here, Schuermann does teach a plurality of sub-master
stations, each of which transmits a sub-master control signal
in response to a received master control signal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007