Appeal No. 95-4390
Application08/066,273
find convincing in the absence of rebuttal evidence or
arguments.
With respect to the appealed claims, the examiner has
pointed out the teachings of Obata, has pointed out the
perceived differences between Obata and the claimed invention,
and has reasonably indicated how and why Obata would have been
modified to arrive at the claimed invention. In our view,
the examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
find that the examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. That is, the examiner’s
analysis, if left unrebutted, would be sufficient to support a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The burden is, therefore,
upon appellant to come forward with evidence or arguments
which persuasively rebut the examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness. Appellant has presented at least one substantive
argument in response to the examiner’s rejection. Therefore,
we consider obviousness based upon the totality of the
evidence and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
With respect to claim 7 specifically, the examiner
reads the claim on the disclosure of Obata [answer, pages 3-
4]. The examiner notes that Obata fails to disclose the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007