Appeal No. 1997-3563 Page 7 Application No. 08/321,460 claimed invention, it must be ascertained whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the selection made by the applicant. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Fell, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In essence, the examiner*s obviousness conclusion appears to be based upon impermissible hindsight derived from the appellants’ own disclosure rather than a teaching, suggestion or incentive derived from the applied prior art. It follows that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the appealed claims as being unpatentable over the applied references should not be sustained.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007