Appeal No. 1998-1408 Page 18
Application No. 08/569,529
recite printing elongated conductors on both sides of the
flexible, dielectric sheet.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the claimed limitations in the prior art. “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 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) (citing
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (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.”
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007