Appeal No. 1997-2849
Application No. 08/348,811
1976) (considering the problem to be solved in a determination
of obviousness). The Federal Circuit reasons in Para-
Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1088-89, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996), that for the determination of
obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary
skill in the art who sets out to solve the problem and who had
before him in his workshop the prior art, would have been
reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellant. However, "[o]bviousness may not be established
using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of
the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d
at 1239, citing W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ
at 311, 312-313.
Upon our review of Tokumaru, we find that Tokumaru
discloses all the claim limitations recited in Appellant's
claim 1 except for a "displacement means for attaining
vibration reduction by moving said third lens group . . . in a
direction substantially perpendicular to an optical axis." We
further find that Umeda teaches a zoom lens comprising a first
lens group, a second lens group, a third lens group and a
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007