Appeal No. 1999-0859
Application No. 08/330,972
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 Hospital Systems, Inc.
v. Montefiore Hospital, 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).
Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection asserts the Examiner’s failure to set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness since proper motivation for the
proposed combination of references has not been established. In
particular, Appellant argues (Brief, page 24) that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007