Appeal No. 2000-0702
Application 08/653,306
4In re Gordon, 773 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 Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d
at 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995). (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). In the instant case, we find that neither
Rein nor Naka discloses that one should be combined with the
other. We further find that each reference contains a complete
and different invention, and an artisian looking at either would
not have found a reason to modify the other. Therefore, we agree
with Appellants that, without the road map of the Appellants’
invention, the artisan would not have been motivated to look at
the two references for a combination to meet the recited
limitation of claim 4.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 4 over Rein and Naka.
Rein and Kono
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under this combination at page
4 of the Examiner’s answer. The Examiner uses the same reasoning
as in the combination of Rein and Naka. The Examiner asserts
that the exclusive OR gate (XOR) 3 of Kono is the recited
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007