Ex parte FRANZ et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1996-1385                                                        
          Application No. 08/006,139                                                  


          skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of              
          ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as               
          set forth in claims 28-31.  Accordingly, we reverse.                        





          In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is                            
          incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to                 
          support the legal conclusion of obviousness.  See In re Fine,               
          837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  In              
          so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual                      
          determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.              
          1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why                
          one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been              
          led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references              
          to arrive at the claimed invention.  Such reason must stem                  
          from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art              
          as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having                   
          ordinary skill in the art.  Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley                  
          Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),                
          cert. denied, 488 U.S.                                                      
                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007