Ex Parte Leach et al - Page 3


                Appeal No. 2006-0549                                                                                                       
                Application No. 10/181,184                                                                                                 

                        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                                 
                USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys.,                                        
                Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                         
                These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of                                       
                presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.  Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,                                    
                24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to                                   
                the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.                                              
                Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative                                    
                persuasiveness of the arguments.  See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228                                          
                USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,                                         
                788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147                                           
                (CCPA 1976).  Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered                                        
                in this decision.  Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make in                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007