Appeal No. 96-3513
Application No. 08/220,772
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, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Stratoflex
Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535, 218 USPQ 871, 876
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ
173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057. In so
doing, the examiner is required 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, 837 F.2d
1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Ashland Oil,
Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293,
227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital,
732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994, 217 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007