Appeal No. 1996-3669
Application No. 08/274,132
art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
13-16, 18-24, and 26-29. Accordingly, we reverse.
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 inven-
tion. 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., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ
657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007