Ex Parte Lim et al - Page 4


                   Appeal No. 2006-1628                                                                                           
                   Application No. 09/840,082                                                                                     


                   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).  The examiner must articulate reasons for the                                        
                   examiner’s decision.  In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434                                     
                   (Fed. Cir. 2002).  In particular, the examiner must show that there is a teaching,                             
                   motivation, or suggestion of a motivation to combine references relied on as                                   
                   evidence of obviousness.  Id. at 1343.  The examiner cannot simply reach                                       
                   conclusions based on the examiner’s own understanding or experience - or on                                    
                   his or her assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense.                                        
                   Rather, the examiner must point to some concrete evidence in the record in                                     
                   support of these findings.  In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,                                  
                   1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  Thus the examiner must not only assure that the requisite                              
                   findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the                                      
                   reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the examiner’s                                           
                   conclusion.  However, a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the                                     
                   relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as                         
                   the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a                                
                   whole, rather than expressly stated in the references.  The test for an implicit                               
                   showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the                              
                   art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested                                
                   to those of ordinary skill in the art.  In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78                                   
                   USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370,                                   


                                                                4                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007