Ex Parte Mays - Page 4

              Appeal 2007-2818                                                                     
              Application 10/620,731                                                               

          1   is the case when a person has driven away and forgotten to close the barrier,        
          2   the control circuit 110 issues a signal to close the barrier (col. 2, ll. 46 to 51). 
          3         Cohen does not disclose or suggest causing the control unit 110 to             
          4   open the barrier in response to a signal from a remote control device 170 and        
          5   maintain the barrier in an open position as long as a remote control device          
          6   170 is within range of the control unit 110.  Cohen does not disclose or             
          7   suggest causing the control unit to open the barrier upon receiving a signal         
          8   from the remote control device 170, or causing the control unit to maintain          
          9   the barrier in an open position as long as the control unit receives a signal        
         10   from a remote control device.  Cohen does not disclose or suggest causing            
         11   the control unit 110 to maintain the barrier in a closed position if one of the      
         12   remote receivers 170 is within range of the control unit 110 and at least one        
         13   of the remote receives 170 is outside range of the control unit 110.                 
         14                                                                                        
         15                                                                                       
         16                           PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                            
         17         In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the            
         18   Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of             
         19   obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598                
         20   (Fed. Cir. 1988).   In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual                  
         21   determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148            
         22   USPQ 459, 467 (1966). Furthermore, "'there must be some articulated                  
         23   reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of         
         24   obviousness'." KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82              
         25   USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78                  
         26   USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).                                                 

                                                4                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013