Appeal No. 1999-1565
Application No. 08/494,227
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. In addition, our
reviewing court requires the PTO to make specific findings on
a suggestion to combine prior art references. In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000-01, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617-19
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Turning first to Appellants' claim 1, we note that the
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007