Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
demands known to the design community or present in
the marketplace; and the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all
in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.
Id. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The Court noted that “[t]o facilitate review,
this analysis should be made explicit.” Id. (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,
78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness”)). However, “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.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-6 and 21-23 as unpatentable over Moreno, Maloney, and
Ogilvie
Appellants argue claims 1-6 and 21-23 as a group (Appeal Br. 12-20).
Although Appellants list the elements of dependent claims 2-6 and 21-23 on pages
16-20 of the Brief, Appellants do not provide any argument as to why the cited art
does not teach or suggest the listed elements. In particular, Appellants fail to
specifically rebut the Examiner’s findings of fact as to the scope and content of the
prior art and the determination of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. A
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013