Ex Parte Cang et al - Page 6

                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,                    


                                                      6                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013