Appeal No. 2002-1670
Application 08/768,787
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).
With respect to the rejection of each of the appealed
independent claims 1, 15, 32, and 35, Appellant’s arguments in
response assert a failure by the Examiner to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness since all of the claimed limitations
are not taught or suggested by the applied Shinbori reference.
In particular, Appellant contends (Brief, pages 6-9; Reply Brief,
pages 3-5) that, contrary to the Examiner’s stated position,
Shinbori has no teaching or suggestion of selecting, based on a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007