Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
modify Yao with the teachings of Fielder (See Analysis
infra).
Issue 4. We find a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have reasonably been motivated to
modify Anderson with the teachings of Fielder (See
Analysis infra).
STATEMENT OF LAW
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. at 17, 148
USPQ at 467 (1966). In addition to the findings under Graham, there must
also be “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). “[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, 127
S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013