Appeal No. 1998-2727
Application 08/220,949
to the holder in Matsumoto. The cited portion of Matsumoto
teaches that an additional alert mode is available only when
the radio is connected to the holder.
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). "Obviousness may
not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings
or suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.
L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
We find that combining the teachings of Matsumoto
with Yamasaki would only provide additional features to
Yamasaki when connection is detected. This does not teach or
suggest selecting an existing feature in Yamasaki when
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007