Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
artisan at the time of the invention. Our reviewing court has determined that
“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739-40).
Thus, when we take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed, we find the
Examiner has articulated an adequate reasoning with a rational underpinning
that reasonably supports the legal conclusion of obviousness. For at least the
aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Examiner has met the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness and Appellants have failed to
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s prima facie case by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima
facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 20 as being
unpatentable over Veliadis in view of Hoyt.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 21, 23, 24, 26-32, 34, 35, 37, 42, 44-49,
and 51 in this group on the basis of the selected claim alone. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Veliadis in
view of Hoyt for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
representative claim 20.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013