Appeal No. 1997-0523
Application 08/082,576
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. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v.
Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ
657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986);
ACS Hospital. Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital., 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These
showings by the Examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit states that “[the] mere
fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification.”
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007