Ex parte NUSBICKEL - Page 8




          Appeal No. 1998-1434                                       Page 8           
          Application No. 08/159,647                                                  


          selecting a single direct access storage device (DASD) from a               
          plurality of DASDs of a RAID system.                                        


               The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the                         
          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)(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.”  Id. at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007