Appeal No. 2002-0058
Application No. 08/859,865
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. 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, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007