Appeal 2007-0981
Application 10/803,434
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
ANALYSIS
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 based on the combination of Kniffin and Pinzon, after
reviewing the Examiner’s analysis (Answer 4-5), it is our opinion that the
stated position is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has
at least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
The burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence
and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed waived [see
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
Appellants’ arguments in response to the stated rejection, as well as to
the Examiner’s comments at pages 13 and 14 in the “Response to
Argument” portion of the Answer, focus on the alleged deficiency of
Kniffin in disclosing the transmission of access information to the access
control systems independent of any users’ requests to unlock doors as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013