Appeal No. 1998-0923
Application No. 08/514,718
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 1, 2, and 4-10. 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,
17-18, 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007