Appeal 2007-2582
Application 10/800,652
9. Sinopoli describes that the elongated container is affixed through a
suction cup and/or screws or other fasteners. (Col. 2, ll. 43-52; Fig. 2,
elements 35 & 37).
10. Sinopoli describes that the elongated container has a series of
electrical connectors, connected through internal wires to a conductor, which
is connected to an electrical outlet. (Col. 2, ll. 13-42; Fig. 1, elements 20, 21
& 26).
11. The Examiner has acknowledged that Sinopoli does not disclose a
releasable engagement of the conductor, connected to an electrical outlet,
with the elongated container.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. See Id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim but can
take into account the inferences and the creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
The claims on appeal should not be confined to specific embodiments
described in the Specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). During ex parte prosecution, claims must be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013