Appeal No. 1998-0493
Application 08/364,000
Even if it were obvious to combine Kerr or Lee with
Saito to perform a conventional conversation ending procedure,
wherein the base station is signaled to release the channel,
we find no teaching or suggestion to apply this procedure to
Saito’s “waiting state”. As argued by Appellant (brief-page
4), such a conclusion could only come from impermissible
hindsight.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he 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 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 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 at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.
L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007