Appeal No. 97-1205 Page 6
Application No. 08/357,551
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 make the
factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 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 impli-cation 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007