Necessity of Articulated Reasoning with Rational Underpinning in an Obviousness Rejection

A rejection for obviousness must include “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).  In Ex parte Awan, by reversing the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) reconfirmed the necessity of articulated reasoning with rational underpinning in an obviousness rejection. 

Claim 1 was illustrative of the appealed claims in Ex parte Awan (with emphasis added): 

1. A vehicle steering system comprising:

an actuator applying a force to the steering system; 

a detection unit obtaining a surface condition of a surface section located ahead of a vehicle in a direction of vehicle travel and subsequently driven on by said vehicle; and 

a data processing unit connected to and communicating with the detection unit, said data processing unit generating a control signal for controlling the actuator based on the detected surface condition.

Appeal No. 2019-006312, at 2 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2020) (non-precedential). 

The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Higashira (US 5,908,457), which described an automobile steering system that included reaction feedback to the operator.  

Regarding the claimed detection unit, the Board noted that, during examination, the Examiner did not identify any portion of Higashira disclosing such detection unit.  The Examiner merely stated in the Final Office Action “the sensors described in Higashira have the capability of detecting the surface condition of a section located ahead of the vehicle” without citing any evidence or providing any explanation to support his conclusion.  

It was in the Examiner’s Answer to Applicant’s Appeal Brief that the Examiner, for the first time, identified Higashira’s sensor 7d as an exemplified sensor corresponding to the claimed detection unit.  The Examiner argued “[it] is quite understood, the road surface on which the vehicle is running is also a road surface located ahead of the vehicle” citing Higashira column 7, lines 48-54.  

The Board, however, disagreed with the Examiner and held that the Examiner’s reliance on Higashira’s description of sensor 7d was still inadequate to support the obviousness rejection.  The Board noted the identified portion of Higashira only taught that sensor 7d detected “the condition of the road surface on which the automobile is running” and did not disclose anything about detecting a surface ahead of the vehicle.  The Board concluded that the Examiner again did not cite any evidence or present a line of reasoning adequate to support his determination.  

Takeaway:  It is well-settled that obviousness rejections cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements.  There must be articulated reasoning based on rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.  In practice, when faced with an obviousness rejection explained with only conclusory statements, Applicant should press the examiner for evidence and support.  If the examiner persists, Applicant should consider citing KSR and appealing to the Board.  

 Judges:  A. W. Fetting, P. J. Hoffmann, and A. A. Shah