Ex Parte PARK - Page 5




          Appeal No. 2002-0587                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/922,300                                                  


          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. 1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &                  
          Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.              
          Cir. 1985); 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.  See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,           
          228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007