Appeal 2007-1652
Application 09/776,058
We therefore find the Examiner’s interpretation reasonable.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 15 and claims 16-20 which fall with claim 15.
Claims 3 and 6
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of (1) claim 3 over the teachings of Anderson in view of Kim and
further in view of Shiomi, and (2) claim 6 over Anderson in view of Kim
and further in view of Safai. We find that the Examiner has established at
least a prima facie case of obviousness of those claims that Appellants have
not persuasively rebutted. Specifically, the Examiner has (1) pointed out the
teachings of Anderson and Kim, (2) noted the perceived differences between
these references and the claimed invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how
and why the references would have been modified to arrive at the claimed
invention (Answer 10-12). 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. Appellants did not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, but merely reiterated the
arguments made in connection with claim 1 with respect to lack of
motivation to combine the references and the failure of the prior art to
disclose the limitations of claim 1 (Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 8-10). For the
reasons previously discussed, however, the rejection is sustained.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013