Appeal No. 2002-2321
Application 09/283,268
in accordance with at least one previously determined mappings of
categories to super-categories. In short, the examiner has not
adequately shown where Cochran expressly teaches or suggests a
previously-determined category-to-super-category mapping, much
less automatically mapping categories to super-categories in
accordance with this previously-determined mapping. Therefore,
because Cochran does not anticipate each and every limitation in
the claims, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We now consider the rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Cochran and Kamakura. 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
stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior
art as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007