Appeal 2007-0647
Application 10/421,366
Claims 6 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Brooks, and further in
view of Miyahira.
Claims 9 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Bigus.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Wilson.
Claims 29 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Camaisa.
Claim 53 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Visconti.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 1740.
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86,
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013