Appeal No. 1999-0260
Application 08/571,064
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). 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 at
1553, 220 USPQ at 312-13.
As regards claims 1-5, 13, 14 and 18, Appellants argue5 that
the prior art relied upon by the Examiner does not disclose or
suggest a disjunctive circuit means as recited in these claims.
In particular, Appellants assert that the PCMCIA Standard6 does
not show such circuit, nor is there any description, need or
function recited in the patent to Price which teaches, discloses,
or even remotely suggests the need for an OR-gate or its
equivalent.
In addition, Appellants argue7 that Price is not directed to
the protection of a mobile computing device, but to a modem card.
5 Brief, page 7
6 Appellants' drawings, figure 11
7 Brief, page 8
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007