Ex parte ESQUIVEL - Page 7




          Appeal No. 1997-1247                                                        
          Application 08/484,196                                                      


          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. 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. System., 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).                          
               Furthermore, the Federal Circuit states that “[the] mere               
          fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner                       
          suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification                    
          obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the              
          modification.”                                                              




                                          7                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007