Appeal 2007-2985
Application 010/669,978
1 On page 3 of the Appeal Brief, Haas says "[c]laims 2 to 15 stand or
2 fall together and are not argued separately in the following arguments." But,
3 the "following arguments" proceed to discuss limitations in each of claims 2
4 to 15. Which is it? Do the claims stand or fall together or do they not? The
5 Examiner was obviously perplexed by the dilemma presented by Haas and
6 decided that Haas was "implicitly arguing these claims." Examiner's
7 Answer 3. In this case, we have addressed each claim. However, applicants
8 should not leave the Examiner or the Board to guess what they are arguing.
9 We would further note that in the arguments dealing with some of the
10 dependent claims, all Haas does is point out a difference: "Claim 9 differs
11 from Claim 1 by specifying …" and "[t]he cited reference does not mention
12 amines of any kind." The mere fact that a claim differs from a reference
13 does not establish non-obviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230,
14 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976).
15 We have considered Haas' remaining arguments and find none that
16 warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejection. Cf. Hartman v. Nicholson,
17 483 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
18 G. Conclusions of law
19 Haas has not sustained its burden on appeal of showing that the
20 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being unpatentable under
21 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tsao.
22 On the record before us, Haas is not entitled to a patent containing
23 claims 1-15.
24
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013