Ex Parte BAIRD et al - Page 6



             Appeal No. 2003-0395                                                      Page 6                      
             Application No. 09/374,704                                                                            
                    with which the invention can be understood may prompt one “to fall victim                      
                    to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the                    
                    invention taught is used against its teacher.” [ ]                                             
                    Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements. [ ]                       
                    Thus, every element of a claimed invention may often be found in the prior                     
                    art. [ ] However, identification in the prior art of each individual part                      
                    claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the whole claimed                           
                    invention. [ ] Rather, to establish obviousness based on a combination of                      
                    the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation,                        
                    suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific                              
                    combination that was made by the applicant.                                                    
             “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).  The                   
             examiner may establish a case of prima facie obviousness based on a combination of                    
             references “only by showing some objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge                
             generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that individual to                 
             combine the relevant teachings of the references.”  Id., 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23                      
             USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).                                                                   
                    The fact that the prior art could have been modified in a manner consistent with               
             appellants’ claims would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art                  
             suggested the desirability of the modification.  In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221                 
             USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  On this record, the only reason or suggestion to                   
             combine the references in the manner claimed comes from appellant’s specification.                    
                    The rejection of claims 1, 3-19, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.                  








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007