Appeal No. 2006-1458
Application No. 10/040,395
Cir. 2002), in which the court required evidence for the
determination of unpatentability by clarifying that the
principles of “common knowledge” and “common sense” may only be
applied to analysis of evidence, rather than be a substitute for
evidence. The court further expanded their reasoning on this
topic in In re Thrift, 298 F. 3d 1357, 1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008
(Fed. Cir. 2002).
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 32, as well as claims 33-
40 dependent thereon, based on the combination of Chiang and
Litwin, is not sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007