Ex Parte MCCALDEN et al - Page 5



          Appeal No. 2004-0044                                                        
          Application No. 09/375,214                                                  
          1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Fine,           
          837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  A               
          prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings           
          of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the                  
          claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.  See            
          In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.              
          1993); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780,              
          1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992); 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).  In considering the           
          question of the obviousness of the claimed invention in view of             
          the prior art relied upon, the Examiner is expected to make the             
          factual determination 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.  See also In re Rouffet, 149               
          F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  Such               
          evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.              
          In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88                
          (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,             
          271-72 (CCPA 1966).                                                         
                                          5                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007