Appeal No. 1999-0529
Application 08/588,800
the rejection of claims 24, 25, 2-4, 9 and 13 as anticipated
by Ilcisin.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6 and 10-121
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Martin and
Ilcisin. 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
1As noted above, claim 7 depends from claim 6 and should
have been included with this rejection. As also noted above,
claim 7 will stand or fall with claim 6 since it is not
separately argued.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007