Appeal No. 2005-0823
Application No. 10/300,895 Page 7
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 64, 72, 80, 88, 96, 104, 112
and 120 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, 14, 15,
19, 20, 37-39, 43-46, 48, 50, 51, 55, 56, 62-66, 70-74, 78-82,
86-90, 94-98, 102-106, 110-114 and 118-122 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over IAH in view of Brice, IATA
and Cogswell. We begin with claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 20, 37, 43, 48,
56, 62, 63, 65, 70, 71, 73, 78, 79, 81, 86, 87, 89, 94, 95, 97,
102, 103, 105, 110, 111, 113, 118, 119 and 121 (appellant's Group
2). The only claim argued by appellant with respect to this
group is claim 1. We turn first to independent claims 1, 7, 12,
20, 37, 43, 48 and 56, which form part of this group, and select
claim 1 as representative of the Group.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007