Appeal No. 1998-2311
Application No. 08/401,869
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, 3-14, and 16-37. 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, 1074, 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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007