Ex parte LIU et al. - Page 12




          Appeal No. 1998-1472                                      Page 12           
          Application No. 08/427,721                                                  


          and 174-178, each require using light beams that travel in                  
          opposite directions to create a holographic grating.                        


               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, 1551-53, 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,                         









Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007