Appeal 2007-2818
Application 10/620,731
1
2 ANALYSIS
3 In the instant case, the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
4 reasoning and rationale to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. The
5 determination by the Examiner that modifying the device disclosed in the
6 Cohen reference to include the subject matter of the appealed method claims
7 is “within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art” is not sufficient
8 reasoning and rationale on which to base an obviousness determination. The
9 Examiner points to no suggestion or motivation to modify the Cohen
10 method; no inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
11 art would employ; no effects of demands known to the design community or
12 present in the marketplace; and no background knowledge possessed by a
13 person having ordinary skill in the art, as support for his conclusion that
14 there existed at the time of the invention, an apparent reason to modify the
15 Cohen device in the manner claimed. As such, we find that the Examiner
16 has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot
17 sustain this rejection.
18 Upon further prosecution of this application, the Examiner is urged to
19 consider whether the claimed subject matter is anticipated or would have
20 been obvious in view of conventional garage door openers which employ a
21 remote control unit to open a garage door.
22
23 REVERSED
24
25
26 vsh
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013