Ex parte LIEBMANN - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-0723                                                        
          Application 08/570,851                                                      


          skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 1-8.                  
          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 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,               


                                          4                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007