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