Appeal No. 1998-1655 Page 24
Application No. 08/367,766
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at
1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239 (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 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 Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “‘[T]he
question is whether there is something in the prior art as a
whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness,
of making the combination.’” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1311-12, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Here, Yamada discloses over a dozen embodiments/examples
of a read/write apparatus. To reject the limitations of claim
1, the examiner relies on the embodiment/example shown in
Figure 26 of the reference, which "shows Example 15." Col. 7,
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007