Appeal No. 2000-0887 Page 6
Application No. 08/848,238
parallel grooves of two sizes, and a lid fastened above the
fixture. With regard to independent claim 2, the examiner
asserts (answer, page 4) that the combined teachings of
Shaheen and Yamada do not show two fixtures having grooves,
but maintains that it would have been obvious to include an
additional fixture for coupling to another optical connector.
With regard to independent claim 9, the examiner takes the
position (answer, pages 5 and 6) that Shaheen and Yamada "do
not specifically disclose the specific method of producing an
angled opto-mechanical connector. However, it is clear that
applicant's methods are obvious to the ordinary skilled person
in the art at the time the invention was made."
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 art or to combine prior art references
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007