Appeal No.1997-0898
Application No. 08/281,879
We next consider the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 17 based on the combination
of APA and Murdock. 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
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,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007