Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
THE REFERENCES
Bork US 6,246,376 B1 June 12, 2001
Kikinis US 6,389,290 B1 May 14, 2002
Hendrey US 6,542,750 B2 Apr. 1, 2003
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-21, and 23-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Bork in view of
Hendrey.
Claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Bork in view of Hendrey, and
further in view of Kikinis.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 1740. Appellant has the burden on appeal to
the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013