Appeal No. 2005-0900
Application No. 10/098,588
this known half value width, there is no reason why persons
skilled in this art would be unable to ascertain whether or not
the claimed invention is being infringed.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8 and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Yanagisawa and Shinozuka. 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.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil,
Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007