Ex Parte SODERGARD et al - Page 5


               Appeal No. 2000-1620                                                                                                   
               Application 08/507,326                                                                                                 

               crosslinking.”  Indeed, the examiner does not point to any evidence with respect to the level of                       
               ordinary skill in this art in support of his position.                                                                 
                       Accordingly, on this record, we must reverse the ground of rejection under                                     
               § 103(a) because we conclude that the examiner’s position is based on hindsight.  See generally,                       
               In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002), and cases cited                              
               therein (the requirement for objective factual underpinnings for a rejection under § 103(a)                            
               extends to the determination of whether the references can be combined); In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d                       
               1350, 1358, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific                           
               understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the                     
               modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been                         
               explained); In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531-32  (Fed. Cir. 1988)                           
               (“The consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is whether the prior art would have                        
               suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that [the claimed process] should be carried out and                     
               would have a reasonable likelihood of success viewed in light of the prior art. [Citations omitted]                    
               Both the suggestion and the expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not in the                        
               applicant’s disclosure.”); cf. Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300, 1301-02 (Bd. Pat. App. &                            
               Int. 1993) (“At best, the examiner’s comments regarding obviousness amount to an assertion that                        
               one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have been able to arrive at appellant’s invention                      
               because he had the necessary skills to carry out the requisite process steps.  This is an                              
               inappropriate standard for obviousness. . . . That which is within the capabilities of one skilled in                  
               the art is not synonymous with obviousness. Ex parte Gerlach, 212 USPQ 471 (Bd. App.                                   
               1980).”).                                                                                                              





                       The examiner’s decision is reversed.                                                                           
                                                              Reversed                                                                



                                                                - 5 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007