Appeal No. 1998-1251
Application 08/521,393
USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v.
Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir.
1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore
Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by
the examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. See, e.g., In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The 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); 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 Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l
Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117
S.Ct. 80 (1996).
As is stated by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967):
A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a
factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without
hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. In
making this evaluation, all facts must be considered. The
Patent Office [examiner] has the initial duty of supplying the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007