Ex Parte HOLMANN et al - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2002-2330                                                        
          Application No. 09/116,260                                 Page 4           

          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 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,              





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007