Appeal 2006-2961
Application 09/745,390
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
Representative Claim 1
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park and Halperin. 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 must make the factual determinations set
forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966).
Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a
combination of known elements, the Court in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) explains:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013