Appeal No. 1998-0621
Application No. 08/323,288
The Examiner’s rejection states:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time [the]
invention was made to have substituted the technique
of displaying object oriented window environments
surrounding the user as taught by MacKay to the
technique of displaying [the] two overlapping
display information of Price so as to avoid the
information being blocked from view of the user.
[Emphasis added.] [Answer-pages 5 and 6.]
We see nothing in the references, and the Examiner has
not indicated where the references teach or suggest a desire
to avoid the information being blocked from view of the user.
We can only assume this objective was gleaned from Appellants’
disclosure.
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
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007