Appeal No. 2006-1279 Application No. 10/249,005 etc. to distinguish high priority mail as taught in the reference even when the document within the envelope is folded. Core factual findings in patentability determinations must point to some concrete evidence in the record to support the findings. In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In addition, obviousness rejections must be based on evidence comprehended by 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."). On this record, the examiner's finding that Berson detects the entire document content using a detector sensor is speculative and therefore lacks sufficient evidentiary support. Because independent claims 1 and 9 both recite detecting the entire document content with a detector sensor, we will not 13Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007