Appeal No. 2002-2237 Page 4
Application No. 09/336,046
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse.
Appellants assert (brief, page 4, and reply brief, page 2) that
the claims stand or fall together. Consistent with this
statement, appellants present arguments with respect to claim 1.
However, as appellants are entitled, procedurally, to a review of
at least one claim for each ground of rejection, we select claim
1 as representative of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Holtz, and select claim 2 as
representative of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Holtz in view of Smith.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We turn to 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 must stem from some teaching, suggestion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007