Ex Parte DALAL et al - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2001-2581                                                        
          Application No. 08/847,124                                                  


          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 much stem from some teachings,                      
          suggestions or implications 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).  If that burden is met, the burden then shifts            
          to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument             
          and/or evidence.  Obviousness is then determined on the basis of            
          the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the              

                                         -4–                                          





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007