Appeal No. 2004-2258
Application 10/145,543
Claims 25-51, and 76-81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obvious, the examiner offers Wittgreffe, Peltonen, Hooper and Pereira with regard to
independent claims 25, 34, and 43, adding Judd with regard to claims 26, 35, and 44,
further adding Hull and Hara with regard to claims 27, 36, and 45, still further adding
Shaughnessy with regard to claims 28-30, 37-39, and 46-48, and still further adding
Pohlmann with regard to claims 31, 40, and 49. With regard to claims 32, 33, 41, 42,
50, 51, and 76-81, the examiner offers the combination of Wittgreffe, Peltonen, Hooper,
and Pereira, adding Hoover to the combination with regard to claims 32, 41, and 50,
adding Hoang to the combination with regard to claims 33, 42, and 51, adding Carper
and Dugan to the combination with regard to claims 76, 78, and 80, and adding Carper
and Farrell to the combination with regard to claims 77, 79, and 81.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of obviousness
under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual basis supported by a teaching in a
prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a prima
facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007