Ex Parte SCHULZ et al - Page 6



          Appeal No. 2003-0785                                                         
          Application 09/457,816                                                       

          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.), 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 Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,              
                                           6                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007