Appeal 2007-2035 Application 09/848,846 The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show unpatentability: Lowrey US 5,252,504 Oct. 12, 1993 Claims 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lowrey. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we refer to the Brief 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 Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). OPINION 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). Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a combination of known elements, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) explains: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013