Appeal No. 1999-1098
Application 08/627,313
that of Appellants. This purpose does not provide any reason
to one skilled in the art to provide the claimed memory 19
blocks to surround the peripheral circuit.
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 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). "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 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). In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
19Lines 3-12
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007