Appeal No. 2002-1210
Application No. 09/483,018
15-18) and in Lyon (col. 1, lines 38-56) in support of the
combination and states that it is the same purpose that is
outlined by Appellant (specification, page 8, lines 9-20).
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner
must produce a factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration, consistent with the holding in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). This evidence is
required in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72
(CCPA 1966). However, “the Board must not only assure that the
requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Our review of Lyon confirms that the reference relates to a
single cross-connect system for processing all signals embedded
within a multi-layer signal structure (col. 2, lines 2-4). As
depicted in Figure 8A, after completing a crosspoint switch
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007