Appeal 2007-2234
Application 09/950,477
Wilkinson, Miranda '438, Miranda and Iler qualify as prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The rejections under review in this appeal are: Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21-
28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Miranda
in light of Iler. Claims 10, 20 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Miranda in light of Iler, as applied to claims 1, 11
and 21, and further in view of Miranda '438.3
Appellants have grouped claims 1-10, 11-20 and 21-30 together
(Appeal Br. 7, ¶ 3). However, Appellants have not argued any the separate
patentability of any of claims 1-30 (Appeal Br. 7-13). Therefore, we decide
this appeal on the basis of claim 11. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(v).
II. Obviousness
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383
U.S. 1 (1966).
Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art and (4)
relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
3 The Examiner clearly relies on Miranda's incorporated-by-reference
disclosure of Iler as part of his fact-finding and conclusion of obviousness
(Answer, 9 (last eight lines)). Appellants addressed Iler in their Reply Br.,
8-9.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013