Appeal No. 2006-0203
Application No. 09/187,332
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner
is expected to make the factual determination supported by
teachings in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with the
holding in set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17,
148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). When an obviousness determination
relies on the combination of two or more references, there must
be some suggestion or motivation to combine the references. See
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). A motivation to combine prior art references 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). Also, evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation
to modify a reference may flow from the prior art references
themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved,
see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d
1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007