Appeal 2007-1047
Application 09/944,892
broadly construes the claimed “active network” as encompassing Matsuda’s
network, as shown in Fig. 1 (Answer 9).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants restate that no specific definition of the
term “active network” is included in the Specification (Reply Br. 3, ¶ 2).
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to rebut Appellants’ evidence of
ordinary and plain meaning (id.). Appellants restate that neither Matsuda
nor Bertin teaches or suggests the use of an “active network,” as claimed
(Reply Br. 2-4).
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). Furthermore, “‘there must be some 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)).
After carefully considering all of the evidence before us, we note that
Matsuda expressly teaches “a multiplex transmission system [that] is
installed in an automotive vehicle” (col. 3, ll. 51-52, Fig. 1). Matsuda
further teaches the multiplex transmission system is a network:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013