Appeal 2007-1652
Application 09/776,058
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Kim.
2. Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kim in view of Anderson.
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Anderson in view of Kim and further in view of Shiomi.
4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Anderson in view of Kim and further in view of Safai.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-14
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Kim.
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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013