Appeal No. 1999-2068
Application 08/650,038
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 at, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84 n.14
(Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d at, 902, 221
USPQ at 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 at 1000-01, 50 USPQ2d at 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).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007