Appeal 2006-3135
Application 09/802,638
stated rejection as to claims 12 through 14, the Examiner relies upon
Matthews in view of Watson, further in view of Linehan.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as
expanded upon here, we sustain the respective rejections of all claims on
appeal. Appellant presents arguments only as to independent claims 1, 2, 7,
and 12, and dependent claim 11. Since no arguments are presented to us as
to any other dependent claims on appeal, the rejections of them are affirmed
for the same reasons as their respective independent claims. Any arguments
that could have been made as to these dependent claims have been waived.
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 (1996). “[T]he Examiner bears the initial burden on review
of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013