Appeal No. 1997-1194
Application No. 08/084,668
In making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner,
therefore, has pointed out the teachings of Shinohara and
Hokari, has reasonably indicated the perceived differences
between this prior art and the claimed invention, and has
provided reasons as to how and why the prior art references
would have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the
claimed invention. In our view, the Examiner's analysis is
sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at
least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come
forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but
elected not to make in the Brief have not been considered in
this decision (note 37 CFR § 1.192).
In response, Appellant, aside from a broad general
assertion at page 16 of the Brief, does not attack the
combinability of Shinohara and Hokari but, rather, initially
argues that Hokari does not disclose a key feature of the
claimed invention, i.e. “each routing table entry . . .
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007