Appeal No. 2006-3118
Application No. 10/144,884
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
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, the appellant's arguments set forth in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal as set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
We first consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 14-17, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Rieker.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013