Ex parte HARDEE - Page 13




          Appeal No. 1998-1657                                      Page 13           
          Application No. 08/674,282                                                  


               based on the state of at least one of said latch                       
               nodes.                                                                 
          Accordingly, the limitations of claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39                
          require a local column read amplifier coupled to data read                  
          lines and to an internal node of a sense amplifier latch.                   


               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, 1783-84                  
          (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221               
          USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).                                          










Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007