Appeal No. 2002-1557 Page 7
Application No. 09/305,746
in the art. See In re Kuderna, 426 F.2d 385, 389, 165 USPQ 575, 578 (CCPA
1970); see also In re Shuman, 361 F.2d 1008, 1012, 150 USPQ 54, 57 (CCPA
1966). In assessing the teachings of the prior art references, the examiner
should also consider those disclosures that may teach away from the invention.
See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Moreover, the findings of fact underlying the obviousness rejection, as
well as the conclusions of law, must be made in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706 (A), (E) (1994). See Zurko v.
Dickinson, 527 U.S. 150, 158, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 1821, 50 USPQ2d 1930, 1934
(1999). Findings of fact underlying the obviousness rejection, upon review by
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, must be supported by substantial
evidence within the record. See In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315, 53
USPQ2d 1769, 1775 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In addition, in order for meaningful
appellate review to occur, the examiner must present a full and reasoned
explanation of the rejection. See, e.g., In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The obviousness rejection of record does
not meet the above criteria, and is thus reversed.
Claim 6 is drawn to “a method of removing sebum selectively from the
skin of a made-up face without removing makeup.” Shimada, the reference
relied upon by the rejection, is drawn to “a skin cleansing agent which is capable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007