Appeal 2007-1537 Application 09/916,903 known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See also Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162, 82 USPQ2d at 1691 (holding it “obvious to combine the Bevan device with the SSR to update it using modern electronic components in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost”). With respect to the role of the Examiner as finder of fact, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated: “the examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 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 must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, 78 USPQ2d at 1336). Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013