Ex Parte Bellander - Page 3




             Appeal No.  2006-3002                                                                                
             Application No.  10/399,820                                                                          
             rejections, and to the brief (filed August 1, 2005) and reply brief (filed November 21,              
             2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                    
                    Only those arguments actually made by appellant has 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 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 claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                    
             unpatentable over Shueh.                                                                             
                    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, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438                 
             (Fed. Cir. 1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281,              

                                                        3                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007