Appeal No. 1999-2068
Application 08/650,038
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1 (1966), focused on the procedural and
evidentiary processes in reaching a conclusion
under Section 103. As adapted to ex parte
procedure, Graham is interpreted as continuing to
place the "burden of proof on the Patent Office
which requires it to produce the factual basis for
its rejection of an application under section 102
and 103". Citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967).
In addition, one important indicium of non-obviousness is
"teaching away" from the claimed invention by the prior art.
In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1532
(Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 784, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here Fujisawa teaches away from
the reason proposed by the Examiner for the combination, as
the system operation unit of Fujisawa is disclosed to operate 10
only when the vehicle is at a stop, in an idling state, or in
a park position. In fact, Fujisawa states "Since the driver
watches the display . . . steps 524, 526 are executed for
danger averting purposes only under conditions where the
10Column 12, lines 45-50 and column 8, lines 40-52.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007