Appeal No. 2006-1431 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/386,855
the strap of Litwin would be extended in the area between
juncture 32 and locking face 57 of teeth 55, which would result
in the strap having the ability of securing more than one object.
However, we find no suggestion for changing the orientation of
the strap as it extends from the buckle portion 3 (latch block)
so as be perpendicular to the apertures of the latch block absent
the teachings of appellant’s disclosure. “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)).
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of independent
claim 9. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007