Appeal No. 1998-0500
Application 08/504,478
must also be read such that the elastomeric interface is
located between the two conductive patterns. As clearly seen
in Brodsky’s Figure 4, the elastomeric interface 41 is not
between conductive patterns 13 and 61. Therefore, we find
that Brodsky does not fully meet every feature as recited in
the claimed invention.
Since we agree with appellant that every limitation of
claims 13-16 and 18 is not fully disclosed by Brodsky, we do
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 13-16 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We now consider the rejection of claim 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Brodsky.
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), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill
in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007