Appeal No. 2006-2918
Application 09/844,919
a display associated with remote control 10. Therefore, when using the
teachings of Allport in a multiple display system, it would have suggested to
the artisan the addition of another TV 80 or some other user appliance
having a display for television signals. Therefore, the multiple display
system of Allport would clearly meet the claim recitation of a plurality of
user appliances positioned within the local area network.
Since claims 2-8, 10, and 12 have not been separately argued by
appellant, we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims for the
same reasons just discussed.
With respect to independent claim 14, appellant again argues that
Allport fails to disclose a wireless local area network [brief, page 8]. We
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1. Since claims 15-17 have not been
separately argued by appellant, we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of
these claims.
We now consider the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007