Appeal No. 2002-1185
Application No. 09/112,242
moveable guides and the dimensions of the tape transport
apparatus. Additionally, the Examiner has failed to point to any
teachings in Leonhardt, nor do we find any, that would have
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rack and
pinion tape threading pin means, a third moveable guide means, or
any particular dimension in the tape drive apparatus of Leonhardt
and support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
“Deficiencies of the cited references cannot be remedied by
the Board’s general conclusions about what is ‘basic knowledge’
or ‘common sense.’” In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1385, 59 USPQ2d
1693, 1697(Fed. Cir. 2001). Furthermore, “the Board’s findings
must extend to all material facts and must be documented on the
record, lest the ‘haze of so-called expertise’ acquire insulation
from accountability.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, we find the Examiner’s
arguments to be supported merely by the Examiner’s own expertise
instead of the evidence of record and the teachings of prior art
which are required in order to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of any of claims 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13 and 16-18 over
Leonhardt.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007