Appeal No. 1999-2698
Application 08/560,108
court must answer whether one of ordinary skill in the art who
sets out to solve the problem and who had before him in his
workshop the prior art, would have reasonably expected to use
the solution that is claimed by Appellants. However,
“[o]bviousness may not be established using hindsight or in
view of the teachings or suggestions of the invention.” Para-
Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37
USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc. 721 F.2d 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 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).
We will first consider the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9,
13 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bajura in view of Sutherland.
On page 6 of the Appeal Brief (hereinafter "Brief"),
Appellant agrees with the Examiner that Bajura shows a head
mounted camera for mounting on the head of a viewer acting as
a cameraman, an image processor for integrating these images
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007