Appeal No. 1998-0368 Application No. 08/632,183 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 & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Analysis 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007