Ex parte GILLIG et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-1491                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/654,502                                                  


               F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.                       
               1992)....  "A prima facie case of obviousness is                       
               established when the teachings from the prior art                      
               itself would appear to have suggested the claimed                      
               subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the                    
               art."  In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d                        
               1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,                   
               531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).                   
               If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie                       
               case, the rejection is improper and will be                            
               overturned.  In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5                        
               USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                    
          Furthermore, “[o]bviousness 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              
          1985, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs.,               
          Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1450, 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 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84                
          n.14(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                   








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007