Appeal No. 1996-3262
Application No. 08/141,632
references suggest a diamond film in direct contact with a fluid,
the Examiner notes that this is true, but that no claim language
requires the diamond film to be in direct contact with the fluid
(emphasis added).
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he 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). "Obviousness may not be established using
hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor." Para-Ordnance, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239,
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at
311, 312-13. In addition, our reviewing court requires the PTO
to make specific findings on a suggestion to combine prior art
references. In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000-01, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617-19 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the
claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007