Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over East.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbentupon 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 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1,17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references
to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007