Appeal 2007-0470
Application 09/976,997
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). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that the scope and breadth of the claim
language does not preclude the post 16f from reasonably corresponding to
the locating element as claimed. First, we disagree with Appellants that a
“keyed filler panel assembly” requires an integral structure that excludes any
part of the chassis. The term “assembly” is defined, in pertinent part, as “the
fitting together of manufactured parts into a complete machine, structure, or
unit of a machine” or “a collection of parts so assembled.”3 In our view,
components of the chassis that are fitted together with the filler panel body
collectively constitute a filler panel assembly as claimed giving the term its
broadest reasonable interpretation.
3 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, available at http://www.m-
w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=assembly (last visited
Apr. 13, 2007).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013