Appeal No. 2006-1092
Application No. 08/948,530
2. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ginsberg in view of Becker and Bateman.
3. Claims 6-9 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Andrews in view of Becker.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
reference to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant's arguments set forth in
the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Ginsberg and Becker. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007