Ex Parte USKOLOVSKY et al - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2001-2110                                                        
          Application No. 09/095,462                                                  


               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 not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in         
          the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims             
          25-36.  Accordingly, we reverse.                                            
               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.                       
                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007