Appeal No. 2002-1784
Application No. 09/583,333 Page 8
includes a data communication bus 24 that communicates data from
the microprocessor 20 to the controlled devices by interfacing
with the vehicle wiring.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1, that
has not been successfully rebutted by appellant. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. As
clams 2, 3, 7, 13, 19, 25-27, 29, 35-37, and 41 fall with claim 1
(brief, page 5) the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 13, 19, 25-27,
29, 35-37, and 41 is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 4-6, 8, 14-18, 20,
28, 30, 38-40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Dery in view of Drew. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, it is incumbent upon 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 from some
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007