Appeal 2006-3366
Application 10/864,041
Tsuya. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fan, Hendershot, and DeCristofaro, in further view of
Caamano.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 26, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Mar. 24, 2006)
and Reply Brief (filed Jul. 24, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 103
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must be based on the following
factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness.
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013