Appeal No. 2004-1627
Application No. 09/207,945
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).
After reviewing Blumenau, we agree with Appellants that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007