No articulated reasoning by Examiner in Ex parte Franklin

from Ex parte Franklin

The Examiner also has provided no articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings for modifying Kahr to meet this claim limitation without
impermissible hindsight. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness).
The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-4 and 6-13, which depend from claim 1.
Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.”).