Appeal No. 1999-0006
Application No. 08/470,970
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as recited
in claims 1-9 and 11-40. 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, 1073-74, 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 skill
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007