Appeal No. 95-3637
Application 07/968,736
with independent claims 1 and 9. Indeed, on page 3 of the
brief, the appellants specified two separate groups for
argument, and on page 6 the appellants advanced arguments for
claims 2, 4, 10, 12 and 14 as a second group.
The examiner has failed to address and account for the
claimed features of dependent claims 2, 4, 10, 12 and 14. The
initial burden is on the examiner to establish a prima facie
basis to reject the claims. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
examiner must provide a factual basis to support an
obviousness conclusion. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057
(1968) (The examiner may not resort to speculation,
assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction); In re Lunsford, 357
F.2d 385, 391, 148 USPQ 721, 725 (CCPA 1966) (The provisions
of section 103 must be followed realistically to develop the
factual background against which the section 103 determination
must be made); In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785, 787, 165 USPQ 570,
571 (CCPA 1970) (A determination of obviousness must be based
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007