Appeal No. 2005-0323 Page 4
Application No. 09/577,835
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm. We
observe at the outset appellants' assertion (brief, page 4) that
claims 25-30 stand or fall together. However, because appellants
are entitled, procedurally, to consideration of at least one
claim for each different ground of rejection, we select claim 25
as representative of claims 25-27 and 30; and select claim 28 as
representative of claims 28 and 29.
We begin with the rejection of claims 25-27 and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of
Mogami. 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007