Appeal No. 96-2686
Application 08/224,213
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As indicated by the cases just cited, the examiner has at
least two responsibilities in setting forth a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103. First, the examiner must identify all the
differences between the claimed invention and the teachings of
the prior art. Second, the examiner must explain why the
identified differences would have been the result of an
obvious modification of the prior art.
In our view, the examiner has properly addressed his
first responsibility, but has not met his second
responsibility.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's suggested
combination of Oguchi and Herleth is not justified.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007