Board refers to "articulated reasoning" in sustaining obviousness rejection
Appellants further assert that the Examiner fails to provide an explicit reason for combining Gordon with Adamovits and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined Adamovits telecommunication system with Gordon’s pixel processor. App. Br. 10-12. We first note that an obviousness analysis need not include a precise teaching but must have “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion obviousness.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted). The Examiner explains (Ans. 11-12 (citing col. 3, ll. 45-54)) that while Adamovits discusses critical telecommunication and data systems using spare processors, Adamovits further contemplates that such a system has “wide applicability to sparing for critical equipment in a wide variety of applications and environments.” Col. 3, ll. 53-54.
Appellants do not address or counter in the Reply Brief the Examiner’s articulated reasons for combining Adamovits and Gordon discussed in the Response to Arguments section, but rather repeat that Adamovits discusses a telecommunication switch and Gordon discusses a single pixel processor. See Reply Br. 8-9.