Appeal No. 2006-1910
Application No. 09/910,654
evidence of obviousness. Id. 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at
1433-34. 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,
55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also In re
Thrift, 298 F. 3d 1357, 1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir.
2002). These showings by the examiner are an essential part of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007