Appeal No. 2005-2753
Application No. 09/730,238
systems using different communication protocols (See Silverman, col. 4, lines 10-13).”
Appellant has indicated no specific error in the examiner’s reasoning.
Thus, the examiner has provided reasoning, amounting to a prima facie case of
obviousness, in our view, for the rejections of each and every claim grouping, including
Groups VII through XIII, and appellant merely alleges, generally, that the examiner has cited
no clear and particular evidence of record in support of a motivation for the combinations of
references and the examiner has cited no evidence of a reasonable expectation of success.
Such general denials of the examiner’s reasonable explanations of the rejections, absent any
specifics as to what appellant perceives as the error or errors in the examiner’s rationales, are
not persuasive of nonobviousness.
Since appellant has not pointed to any specifics, regarding any perceived errors in the
examiner’s rejections, preferring, instead, to merely generally allege a lack of “clear and
particular evidence of record in support of this motivation to combine” the references and a
lack of “evidence of a reasonable expectation of success of the proposed combination” (see
page 20 of the principal brief with regard to the Group VII claims 13 and 40, page 21 with
regard to the Group VIII claim 14, page 22 with regard to the Group IX claim 15, page 23
with regard to the Group X claims 21-23, and the Group XI claim 26, page 24 with regard to
the Group XII claim 27, and page 25 with regard to the Group XIII claims 37 and 48), we
find appellant’s allegations to be without merit.
While it is, indeed, an argument to allege a lack of clear and particular evidence of
-17-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007