Appeal No. 1999-1927
Application No. 08/499,367
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 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 applicant to overcome
the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on
the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007