Appeal No. 1996-2199
Application 08/191,060
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, 19-21, 23, 24
and 26-29. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to
claims 7 and 18. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007