Appeal No. 1999-0304
Application No. 08/520,606
U.S. 825 (1988). These showings by the examiner are an
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, "[o]bviousness 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), citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Here the examiner has pointed to a structure, Caiati's,
with similar components to those claimed and concluded that it
would have been obvious to combine it with AAPA, with no
suggestion in the references as to how, where, or why one
would connect the various elements in the structure of AAPA.
The examiner has not analyzed the prior art to determine the
differences, and has not pointed to any teachings or
suggestions in the references as to how and why to combine the
references. The claims require a specific arrangement of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007