Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Baker US 5,583,561 Dec. 10, 1996
Ueda US 5,815,194 Sep. 29, 1998
McDougall US 5,999,966 Dec. 7, 1999
Vaios US 6,271,752 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McDougall and Vaios.
2. Claims 3, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McDougall , Vaios, Baker, and Ueda.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant 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
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant 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, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14,
and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McDougall in view
of Vaios. 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013