Appeal No. 2004-0329 Page 6
Application No. 09/251,953
“[T]he Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness based upon the prior art. ‘[The Examiner] can satisfy this burden
only by showing some objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that individual to
combine the relevant teachings of the references.’” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). An adequate
showing of motivation to combine requires “evidence that ‘a skilled artisan,
confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the
claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references
for combination in the manner claimed.’” Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Calif.
Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In
addition, the motivation to combine the references need not be “an express,
written motivation” appearing in the prior art references, but may be found “in the
nature of the problem to be solved.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270,
1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The ADM article, published in the Chicago Tribune, is reproduced below.
The global battle over genetically modified crops moved
closer to U.S. farmers this week when agribusiness giant Archer
Daniels Midland Co. warned suppliers to keep such crops separate
from conventional ones.
With harvest only days away in the Corn Belt, farmers and
grain merchants heeding the warning will be forced to absorb
additional storage and handling costs, industry sources said.
“If you needed two bins before, now you will need four,” said
Kevin Aandahl, spokesman for the National Corn Growers
Association.
Crops genetically altered to resist pests or herbicides made
their debut three years ago in the United States and their use has
skyrocketed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007