Appeal No. 2002-2330
Application No. 09/116,260 Page 10
the firing time mechanism of Morrison to Hagqvist. We do not
agree with the examiner's statement (answer, page 5) that
“Hagqvist also discloses the delay value that tells execution
unit when to execute that instruction and that delay value is
stored in a register” but rather find that Hagqvist discloses a
branch address value, not a delay value. Moreover, we are not
persuaded by the examiner's assertion (answer, pages 5 and 6)
that the modification would have been obvious "because doing so
would have provided [a] mechanism for adding intelligence to
[the] instruction stream at the object code level." We find no
motivation for an artisan to modify Hagqvist to add intelligence
at the object code level in Hagqvist, other than from use of
appellants' disclosure as a template to reconstruct appellants'
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007