Appeal No. 2005-0664 Page 8
Application No. 09/840,278
1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference,
there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that
reference. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed.
Cir. 2000).
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of the subject
matter of claim 21 appears to stem from hindsight impermissibly gleaned from the
appellants’ disclosure and is not grounded on evidence in the record. The rejection of
claim 21 cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007