Ex Parte Boorananut et al - Page 3


                   Appeal No. 2006-1753                                                                                              
                   Application No. 09/732,037                                                                                        


                   § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meunier in view of Eaton.                                                     
                           2.  Claims 3, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                                  
                   unpatentable over Meunier in view of Eaton and further in view of Hass.                                           
                           Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make                                   
                   reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                        


                                                            OPINION                                                                  
                           We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections                                 
                   advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the                                       
                   examiner as support for the rejections.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken                                    
                   into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants' arguments set forth in                              
                   the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and                                   
                   arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.                                                         
                   It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence                                    
                   relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one                              
                   of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the                                 
                   claims on appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.                                                                        
                           We first consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 13,                               
                   15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meunier in view                                    
                   of Eaton.  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.                                      


                                                                 3                                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007