Appeal No. 1997-2849
Application No. 08/348,811
Appellant further agrees that Umeda teaches a four zoom lens
system in which Umeda is concerned with image stabilization,
by moving the third lens group in a direction substantially
perpendicular to the optical axis for the purpose of image
stabilization. However, Appellant argues that Umeda teaches a
+-++ zoom lens and that it is this difference that would not
suggest moving the third lens in a -+-+ zoom lens of Tokumaru
for image stabilization.
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). It is further
established that "[s]uch a suggestion may come from the nature
of the problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to
references relating to possible solutions to that problem."
Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d
1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), citing In
re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1054, 189 USPQ 143, 149 (CCPA
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007