Appeal No. 2006-1605
Application No. 09/470,741
the Examiner that claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 16-19, 21-24, 28-30 and
32-34 are properly rejected under 35 USC 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vetro et al. (“Vetro”), Ng
and Bose et al. (“Bose”). Next, we agree with the Examiner that
claims 8 and 31 are properly rejected under 35 USC 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vetro, Ng, Bose and Kim et
al. (“Kim”). We further agree with the Examiner that
claims 14 and 26 are properly rejected under 35 USC 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vetro, Ng , Bose and Dugad
et al. (“Dugad”). Last, we agree with the Examiner that claims
15 and 27 are properly rejected under 35 USC 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vetro, Ng, Bose, Dugad and
Rosman et al. (“Rosman”). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-9, 12-21, and 23-34 for the reasons set
forth infra.
I. Under 35 USC § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 1-7, 9, 11-
12, 16-19, 21-24, 28-30 and 32-34 as being Unpatentable Over the
Combination of Vetro, Ng and Bose Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007