Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 41. Appellants conclude that "Ito fails to disclose or suggest a byproduct stream
2 produced from an oxygen-enrichment assembly for pressurizing a supply of liquid fuel as
3 recited in claims 45, 48, and 61." (Brief at 14.)
4 42. For the same reasons, Appellants argue that the rejections of dependent claims 46,
5 49, and 62–68 are also unsound. (Brief at 15.)
6 43. Appellants cite no authority, whether testimony from a person knowledgeable in
7 the art, review articles, technical encyclopedias, or handbooks, in support of their
8 findings as to what Ito teaches.
9 44. Appellants do not argue that the Examiner has improperly combined the teachings
10 allegedly found in Ito with the teachings of Okamoto and St-Pierre.
11 D. Principles of Law
12 On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner has failed to
13 establish sufficient factual and legal bases for the rejections. "The test for obviousness is
14 not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
15 structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
16 suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
17 teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In
18 re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013