Appeal 2006-3382
Application 10/461,709
Concerning the rejection of claims 35, and 43-45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Goluszek.
1. Examiner contends that Goluszek teaches all of the claimed
limitations except for the laser diode load, as specified in these. He
contends that such a load would be an obvious substitution of one type
of electrical load for another. (Answer 6).
2. Appellant does not separately address this issue. (Br. 13, and Reply
Br.).
3. We find that the Examiner’s reasoning for the modification of the load
in Goluszek is supported by the prior art.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant has raised the issue of Goluszek teaching away from the
claimed invention. Our guiding court has held “[t]he prior art’s mere
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013