Appeall No. 1998-1398 Page 29
Application No. 08/400,637
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). “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, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as
an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the
teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is
rendered obvious.” Id. at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1784, (citing In
re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991)).
Here, none of the Gillig references teaches terminating a
path of a three way call at all, let alone terminating a path
between a calling party and a cellular cordless telephone
having a cellular telephone number when the telephone is
located in a cordless telephone system or terminating a path
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007