Ex parte TAYLOR et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 95-4722                                                          
          Application 07/946,226                                                      

          It is our view, after consideration of the record                           
          before us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the                 
          level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested               
          to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the                  
          invention as set forth in claims 1-24.  Accordingly, we                     
          We consider first the rejection of claims 1-17 and 21-                      
          24 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as unpatentable over Wah Lo in view                
          of Travis.  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), 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                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007