Appeal No. 1998-2372 Page 7
Application No. 08/639,815
stored information about a time zone boundary ...."
Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 14 require storing
information about time zone boundaries.
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)). “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 Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d
1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “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.” Id. at 1266,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007