Ex parte COLEMAN - Page 6




          Appeal No. 98-1474                                         Page 6           
          Application No. 08/579,385                                                  


          determine if a background is to be printed using a non black                
          colorant.                                                                   


               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 1784, (citing In              









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

Last modified: November 3, 2007