Ex Parte Deshpande et al - Page 8

                  Appeal 2006-3143                                                                                         
                  Application 09/897,383                                                                                   
                         Since we find that all limitations of independent claims 25, 33, 34,                              
                  and 41 are expressly or inherently disclosed by Guedalia, we will sustain the                            
                  Examiner’s rejection of those claims.  Since Appellants have not separately                              
                  argued the patentability of dependent claims 26-32 and 35-40, these claims                               
                  fall with independent claims 25 and 34.  See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,                               
                  1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  See also 37 C.F.R.                                          
                  § 41.37(c)(vii).                                                                                         
                         We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30-32, 39, and                            
                  40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guedalia in view of                               
                  APA.  We find that the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case                              
                  of obviousness that Appellants have not persuasively rebutted.  Specifically,                            
                  the Examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of Guedalia, (2) pointed out                              
                  the perceived differences between Guedalia and the claimed invention, and                                
                  (3) reasonably indicated how and why Guedalia would have been modified                                   
                  to arrive at the claimed invention (Answer 7-8).  Once the Examiner has                                  
                  satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the                                
                  burden then shifts to Appellants to present evidence or arguments that                                   
                  persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case.  See In re Oetiker, 977                              
                  F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  Appellants did                                  
                  not persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, but                               
                  merely noted that the addition of APA fails to cure the deficiencies of                                  
                  Guedalia in connection with independent claim 25 (Br. 5-6).  The rejection                               
                  is therefore sustained.                                                                                  





                                                            8                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013