Appeal No. 97-0984
Application 08/546,345
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence properly relied upon and the
level of 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 1-4. 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007