Appeal No. 1998-1328
Application No. 08/341,500
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ
303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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, 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 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.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007