Appeal No. 2000-1811
Application No. 08/879,638
supra, we find no error in our affirmance of the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13, 15, and 16.
Turning to a consideration of Appellants’ arguments directed
to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 6, 7,
11, and 12 based on Semmlow alone, we find ourselves in agreement
with Appellants that the Examiner improperly relied on statements
in Appellants’ own disclosure to establish a basis for the
obviousness rejection. The Examiner has provided no evidence,
outside of Appellants’ own disclosure, that would support the
conclusion that the skilled artisan would have been motivated and
found it obvious to arrive at the particular docking feature
details set forth in appealed claims 3, 6, 7, 11, and 12. The
Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
CONCLUSION
Appellants' request for rehearing is granted to the extent
that we have reconsidered our prior decision in light of
Appellants' arguments. The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, 11, and 12 is hereby reversed, but
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007