Appeal No. 1999-0568
Application No. 08/447,594
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 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 Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 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. Note In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to
the applicants to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007