Appeal No. 1998-0640
Application 08/212,571
the art would not have been motivated to modify the Puharich ‘246
patent in view of Smith as proposed by the examiner since to do so
would solve no problem and serve no purpose. 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, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Whereas we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10,
the only independent claims, over the prior art for the above
reason, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-9
and 11 over that same art.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007