Appeal No. 1998-3339 Page 7
Application No. 08/614,459
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 1-3 specify
in pertinent part the following limitations: "a) defining a
set of reject classifications for products produced by the
process; b) sampling data relating to rejected products
obtained from the process for the defined set of reject
classifications ...." Accordingly, the claims require
sampling data relating to rejected products, wherein the data
are obtained from a defined set of reject classifications for
products produced by a process.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the prior art of record. “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 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)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007