Appeal 2007-0003
Application 10/217,990
Appellant contends that neither Botzem nor Schutz suggest the
structure as recited in claim 1. Appellant contends that Botzem and Schutz
fail to disclose that the grounding members extended to a water table.
Appellant further contends that Botzem and Schutz are silent with respect to
the unit or device being operable to prevent the transmission of
electromagnetic energy to a material contained within the canister. (Br. 10-
11).
The Examiner contends that Botzem describes a storage facility that
that meets the claimed invention except for the presence of grounding
members. The Examiner contends Schutz discloses a transport and storage
container that comprises grounding members. The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ
grounding members in the apparatus of Botzem. (Answer 6-7).
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) do Botzem and Schutz disclose, teach, or suggest an apparatus
that meets the claimed transition unit? and (2) has the Examiner presented an
explicit analysis of the reasons for including grounding members in the
apparatus of Botzem?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the referenced evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM the § 103 rejection presented in this appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013