Appeal No. 1998-1339
Application 08/024,305
modify or combine prior art references to arrive at the
claimed invention. Such reasons must stem from some teaching,
suggestion, or implication in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally possessed by one with 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 Hospital Systems,
Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 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. See, e.g., In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
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. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Obviousness may not be established using
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007