Appeal No. 2001-1489 Page 3
Application No. 09/177,695
Van Scott et al. [Van Scott] U.S. 4,234,599 November 18, 1980
Dutch Patent [Dutch Patent] NL 9301506 April 3, 1995
German Patent [German Patent] DE 2904478 A1 August 21, 1980
"Jacqueline Cochran Perk-Up Set," [Jacqueline Cochran Advertisement] New York
Times, April 11, 1948, Sec. 1. p. 64.
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Van Scott, Dutch Patent, German Patent and the Jacqueline Cochran Advertisement.
DISCUSSION
The issue for our review is whether the claims are properly rejectable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Van Scott, Dutch Patent, German Patent and
the Jacqueline Cochran Advertisement.
In reviewing, on appeal, a PTO Board’s findings and conclusions, the Federal
Circuit has stated that “[f]or judicial review to be meaningfully achieved within these
strictures2, the agency tribunal must present a full and reasoned explanation of its
decision. The agency tribunal must set forth its findings and the grounds thereof, as
supported by the agency record, and explain its application of the law to the found
facts.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1432-3 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “The
2 “5 U.S.C. §706(2) The reviewing court shall—
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, findings, and conclusions found
to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law;
* * * *
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and
557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing
provided by statute;”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007