Appeal No. 2002-0799
Application No. 08/947,435
The examiner relies on the following references:
Zarmer et al. (Zarmer) 5,625,818 Apr. 29, 1997
Fujisawa et al. (Fujisawa) 5,628,003 May 06, 1997
Malone et al. (Malone) 5,727,175 Mar. 10, 1998
(filed Jun. 07, 1995)
Claims 1-28, 30-46 and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner cites Zarmer with regard to claims 1, 2 and 51, adding
Fujisawa with regard to claims 3-10 and further adding Malone to this combination with
regard to claims 11-28 and 30-46.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
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 to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007