Appeal 2007-1740
Application 09/726,776
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Alexander in view of Engholm. Clam 31 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexander in view of
Rosen.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1-30,
would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
have been motivated and found it obvious to combine Alexander
with Engholm to render the claimed invention unpatentable.
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claim 31,
would the ordinarily skilled artisan have been motivated and found
it obvious to combine Alexander with Rosen to render the claimed
invention unpatentable.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013