Appeal No. 2003-1480
Application No. 09/127,442
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, for an invention to be
obvious in view of a combination of references, there must be
some suggestion, motivation, or teaching in the prior art that
would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to select
the references and combine them in the way that would produce the
claimed invention. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Gulf Co., 242
F.3d 1376, 1385, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
Examiner must also produce a factual basis supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge
of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with the holding in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). However, “the Board
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based
on evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by
which the findings are deemed to support the agency’s
conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appellant argues that Higasayama uses a CAD (computer aid
design) system for generating a curve representing a cutter path
based on the geometry data (brief, page 8). Appellant further
points out that the velocity of the cutter along the cutter path
is determined by taking into account the capabilities of the
machine and the geometry of the work piece (brief, page 9)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007