Appeal No. 2006-1990 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/678,231
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
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.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the
determinations which follow. We begin with the rejection of
claims 1-18, 20, 21, 23-28, 30, 31, and 33-58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nasca in view of Deeg. We
observe at the outset that appellants argue the claims together
as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of
the group. Turning to claim 1, we note as background that 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), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill
in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior
art or to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion
or implication in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally
available to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007