Appeal No. 2002-1785
Application No. 09/239,338 Page 8
individual with biographical information including an area of
expertise of the individual. Nor do we find any teaching or
suggestion of “responsive to a user request for employees having
a given expertise, displaying a store map on an informational
kiosk display wherein a representation of the location of the
employees having the given expertise is shown therein” as recited
in claim 1. Thus, we agree with appellants (brief, page 9) that
"the Christ system locates the position of an emergency, rather
than locating various personnel to deal with an emergency," and
find that the examiner is using appellants' own teachings as a
blueprint for the rejection. “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)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007