Appeal No. 2005-0564
Application No. 09/732,787
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). However,
the motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from
statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to
be solved. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Our review of Gerrans shows that although the reference does
not explicitly describe how the outer shape of the electrical
connector may affect gripping the connector, the disclosed
embodiments clearly show that the outer shape of the molding is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007