Appeal No. 2001-0966
Application No. 08/852,660
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).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 23, and 29 based on Duxbury, Appellants
assert that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness since all the claimed limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied Duxbury reference. At page 11 of the
Brief, Appellants assert that the Examiner has erred in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007