Appeal No. 2006-1742
Application No. 10/001,439
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 1, 8-17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Donzis, Paul
and Plaut.
We affirm this rejection.
Claim Grouping
Appellants do not argue any claim separately with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims. 37
C.F.R. ' 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Rev. 4, October 2005).
DISCUSSION
Obviousness
Claims 1, 8-17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Donzis, Paul
and Plaut.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An obviousness analysis requires
that the prior art both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveal a reasonable
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007