Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Therefore, we look to
Appellant’s Briefs to show error in the proffered prima facie case.
ANALYSIS
Combinability under section 103
We begin our analysis by deciding the threshold question of whether
Appellant has shown the Examiner has failed to articulate an adequate
reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the proffered
combinability of Bork and Hendrey.1
Appellant contends there is no suggestion to combine the references
because the Examiner’s proposed combination of Bork and Hendrey would
change Bork’s principal of operation (App. Br. 14).
Appellant notes that Bork’s system displays the direction and distance
to an object or person on a wireless device (See e.g., Bork col. 7, ll. 4-6:
“[t]he graphic display 114 is preferably capable of supporting a clear arrow
indicating the target direction, as well as its estimated distance.”). Appellant
notes that Bork also teaches alternative means of indicating distance and
direction, such as audible or touch sensitive devices (See Bork, col. 6, lines
1 “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on
any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Moreover, “‘there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013