Appeal No. 2001-1449 Page 3
Application No. 08/791,177
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 20-31, 33-38 and
41. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claim 32. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007