Appeal No. 2001-1064
Application No. 09/164,069
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).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 6 and 9 based on the proposed combination of Lu
and Sivaramakrishnam, Appellants assert that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all of
the limitations of claims 6 and 9 are not taught or suggested by
the applied prior art references, either separately or in
combination. In particular, Appellants contend (Brief, page 7)
that the applied Lu and Sivaramakrishnam references do not teach or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007