Appeal No. 2003-1483
Application No. 09/591,661
of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with the holding in
set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966). Additionally, establishing that all elements of
a combination are known does not per se establish obviousness.
Smith Industries Medical Systems, Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 183
F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420-21 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (the
relevant inquiry is whether there is a reason, suggestion, or
motivation in the prior art that would lead one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the teachings of the references). However,
“the Board must not only assure that the requisite findings are
made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the
agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We note that the admitted prior art merely discloses a
mirror system without tilting or decentering the tertiary mirror
with respect to the optical axis of the system. Cook, on the
other hand, relates to an image system that enables a single
telescope to provide a plurality of different focal lengths for
generating different images at the same time (col. 1,lines 45-
50). Cook further teaches that, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2,
a primary mirror 10, a secondary mirror 12 and at least two
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007