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