Appeal No. 2006-1695
Application No. 10/649,277
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1-24 and 28-39. We reach the opposite conclusion,
however, with respect to claims 25 and 27. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We first consider the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12-16,
19, 20, 28-30, 33, 34, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Takagi, Lee, and Kuchta. 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). The examiner must articulate
reasons for the examiner’s decision. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In particular, the
examiner must show that there is a teaching, motivation, or
suggestion of a motivation to combine references relied on as
evidence of obviousness. Id. at 1343. The examiner cannot
simply reach conclusions based on the examiner’s own
understanding or experience - or on his or her assessment of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007