Appeal No. 2004-0731 Page 4
Application No. 09/957,059
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer. Upon consideration
of the record before us, we reverse.
We observe at the outset appellants' assertion (brief, page
5) that all of the claims may be grouped together. Accordingly,
we select claim 12 as representative of the group.
Turning to claim 12, we note that in rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a
factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007