Appeal No. 1998-3126 18
Application No. 08/479,569
Ludwig, Reed, Microsoft, and Bluthgen to arrive at the claimed
invention. “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 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing W.L. Gore & Assocs.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303,
311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “It is impermissible to use the
claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece
together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re Gorman,
933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Because none of the references addresses a multimedia
documentation system for a video teleconferencing workstation;
the claimed video teleconferencing documentation function, nor
triggering audio and video documentation help from a video
teleconference application window, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the applied prior art would appear to have
suggested the claimed limitations. We therefore find that the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007