Appeal No. 1998-1473 Page 7
Application No. 08/493,741
“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)). “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.” In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992)(citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885,
1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
We also note the following principles from In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (exemplary citations omitted).
The range of sources available, however, does not
diminish the requirement for actual evidence. That
is, the showing must be clear and particular. See,
e.g., C.R. Bard, 157 F.3d at 1352, 48 USPQ2d at
1232. Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are not "evidence."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007