Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to claim 1.
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 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In this appeal, we are satisfied the
examiner has met the requirements of the recent precedent, as embellished
upon here.
Appellant presents a general argument directed toward all pending
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Br. 18-19). We note that Appellant has
presented no evidence or even a rationale in support of Appellant’s broad
assertions that “the Examiner has crossed the line into the realm of using
impermissible hindsight” (Br. 18) and “the Examiner has reached the result
of combining the references using subjective reasoning rather than objective
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013