Appeal No. 1997-0322
Application 08/014,574
989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we
will only consider the rejections against a single claim from
each separate rejection as representative of all the claims on
appeal.
As noted above, the only rejections remaining on
appeal before us are made under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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 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 Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007