Appeal No. 95-5146
Application 08/152,557
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 20-27. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 20 and 22-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Soda in view of
Kimura. These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 5].
Therefore, we will consider the rejection against independent
claim 20 as representative of all the claims subject to this
rejection. 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 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.,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007