Appeal No. 1998-1471 Page 6
Application No. 08/108,510
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations. “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, 1551-53,
220 USPQ 303, 311-13 (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 1784, (citing In
re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007