Appeal No. 1999-0884
Application No. 08/464,577
For the reasons
expressed, supra, we find that the combinations advanced by
the Examiner fail to teach every element recited in these
claims.
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, 73 F.3d at 1087,
37 USPQ2d at 1239,
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ
at 311, 312-13.
Upon a review of the references relied upon by the
Examiner, we fail to find any suggestion or reason to etch the
metallic layer formed on a carrier member to form a heat sink
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007