Ex parte ZANK - Page 10




              Appeal no. 97-1293                                                                                       
              Application no. 08/281,812                                                                               

                     convenience is simply inconsistent  with section 103, which, according to                         
                     Graham [v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)] and its                               
                     progeny, entitles an applicant to issuance of an otherwise proper patent                          
                     unless the PTO establishes that the invention as claimed in the application is                    
                     obvious over cited prior art, based on the specific comparison of that prior                      
                     art with claim limitations.  We once again hold today that our precedents do                      
                     not establish any per se rules of obviousness, just as those precedents                           
                     themselves expressly declined to create such rules.  Any conflicts as may be                      
                     perceived to exist derive from an impermissible effort to extract per se rules                    
                     from decisions that disavow precisely such extraction.                                            
              To paraphrase the court in Ochiai, at 71 F.3d at 1570, 37 USPQ2d at 1132, "there are not                 
              [Aller] obviousness rejections . . . but rather only section 103 obviousness rejections."                
                     The facts in the record must support the legal conclusion of obviousness.  As set                 
              forth in In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 667, 148 USPQ 268, 271 (CCPA 1966):                                  
                     Necessarily, it is facts appearing in the record, rather than prior decisions in and of           
                     themselves, which must support the legal conclusion of obviousness under 35                       
                     U.S.C. 103.  Merely stating that a compound or composition is obvious, without                    
                     adequate factual support, is not sufficient.                                                      
              Hence, a simple statement that it would have been obvious to optimize the method                         
              conditions and properties of the final product is insufficient to establish a prima facie case           
              of obviousness.  See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1977).                        
                     While Aller contains language about optimizing ranges the prior art reference in that             
              case was an article describing one experiment, apparently without disclosing any ranges.                 
              See In re Aller, supra, 220 F.2d at 456, 105 USPQ at 235.  Here, by contrast, both Lukacs                
              and Yajima disclose several examples with sintering temperatures, and further, Yajima                    
              teaches a range of sintering temperatures up to 2000EC. Yajima expressly teaches a                       
              range of temperatures and the examiner has provided no evidence for optimizing the                       

                                                           10                                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007