Appeal No. 2006-1790
Application No. 10/042,030
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). The examiner must articulate
reasons for the examiner’s decision. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In particular, the examiner must show that there is a teaching,
motivation, or suggestion of a motivation to combine references relied on as evidence of
obviousness. Id. at 1343. The examiner cannot simply reach conclusions based on the
examiner’s own understanding or experience – or on his or her assessment of what
would be basic knowledge or common sense. Rather, the examiner must point to some
concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings. In re Zurko, 258 F.3d
1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus the examiner 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 examiner’s
conclusion. However, a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant
prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching,
motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than
expressly stated in the references. The test for an implicit showing is what the
combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the
problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007