Appeal No. 2002-0641
Application No. 09/407,069
At the outset, we note that this case is a continuation of Application Serial No. 08/858,809,
and a decision (Appeal No. 2003-0724) on appeal has been made in the parent case.
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 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 arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ 685, 687
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007