Ex Parte LELL - Page 7




          Appeal No. 2001-0726                                                        
          Application 09/272,969                                                      


          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. 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 Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore            
          Hosp., 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).  If that burden is met, the burden then shifts            
          to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument             
          and/or evidence.  Obviousness is then determined on the basis of            
          the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the              
          arguments.  See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ            
          685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,             
          223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d            
          1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).  Only those arguments            
          actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.           

                                         -7-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007