Appeal No. 2006-2626
Application No. 10/315,175
of the rejections, and to the brief (filed January 17, 2006) for the appellant's
arguments there against.
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept.
13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, 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, appellant's arguments set forth in the brief 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 1-3, 6-9, 15, 16 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keffer in view of Blowers. We note
at the outset that appellant argues the claims as a group. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative of the group. By way of background, we note 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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007