Appeal No. 96-0616
Application 08/036,249
a three or four lead electronic component. The examiner has
not
shown or explained why it would have been obvious in view of
the applied prior art to tape the first, second, eighth and
ninth leads as opposed to, e.g., the first and ninth or the
first, fifth and ninth leads.
The legal conclusion regarding obviousness relies on a
factual foundation, including the definition of the scope and
content of the prior art. See Panduit Corp. V. Dennison Mfg.
Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-97 (Fed. Cir.
1987). "Where the legal conclusion of obviousness is not
supported by facts it cannot stand." See In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). For the
foregoing reasons, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a sufficient factual basis to support a prima facie
case of obviousness. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 9 under U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kuwahara.
Rejection (3)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007