Appeal No. 1998-2572
Application 08/342,671
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
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 1-11. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Urbanus and Wakeland. 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007