Ex Parte ELLIOT et al - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2001-2203                                                        
          Application No. 09/007,949                                                  


          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. 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).                                                
               With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of         
          independent claim 1, based on the combination of Lee and Wilson,            
                                          4                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007