Appeal 2007-1063 Application 09/881,594 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. � 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant. Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. � 102(e) Appellant asserts that Thomas fails to anticipate Appellant’s claimed invention, because Thomas does not teach “repeatedly sending keep-alive messages to maintain the path through the firewall and network address translator.” Appellant asserts that because the ordinary meaning of “maintain” is “to keep in an existing state” (Br. 4:10, citing Merriam- Webster Online Dictionary), Thomas cannot anticipate the claimed invention, because Thomas teaches repeatedly initiating communication 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013