Appeal No. 1999-0356
Application 29/050,057
manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.” In re Fitch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “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., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553,
220 USPQ 303, 311-313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, we do not find
basis for the Examiner’s assertion that the differences
between the claimed design and that shown by the
reference are obvious. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection over Taniguchi.
REVERSED
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007