Ex Parte Poplin et al - Page 5



            Appeal No. 2006-3032                                                             6              
            Application No. 09/969,040                                                                      

                   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).  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, 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                           











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007