Appeal No. 1999-0769 Page 11
Application No. 08/661,532
778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See
also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70, 43 USPQ2d 1362,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Haynes Int’l, Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co.,
8 F.3d 1573, 1577 n. 3, 28 USPQ2d 1652, 1655 n. 3 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, we determine that the examiner has furnished
sufficient evidence to establish the prima facie obviousness
of the product of claim 18.
Appellants have not furnished separate substantive
arguments for each of the dependent claims that are product
claims. Hence claims 14-16 and claim 19 are also considered
obvious over the teachings of Xue in light of the obviousness
findings discussed above with respect to claims 13 and 18.
See In re Ochiai,
71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir.
1995); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
It follows that, on this record, we shall sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 13-16, 18 and 19 as obvious,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, over the applied prior
art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007