Appeal No. 2002-0367
Application No. 09/108,147
unpatentable over Garvey in view of Spofford.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellant’s
grouping of the claims, at page 4 of the principal brief, all
claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus
on independent claim 1.
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 much stem from some teachings,
suggestions or implications in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the
art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051,
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007