Appeal No. 95-1296
Application 08/073,257
of the differences which an artisan might find convincing in the
absence of rebuttal evidence or arguments.
With respect to independent claims 10, 21 and 29, the
examiner has pointed out the teachings of Fitzgerald, has pointed
out the perceived differences between Fitzgerald and the claimed
invention, and has reasonably indicated how and why Fitzgerald
would have been modified to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each of the alleged differences between Fitzgerald and the
claimed invention as argued by appellants has been addressed by
the examiner and the obviousness of such differences has been
explained by the examiner. In our view, the examiner’s analysis
is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the examiner has
satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. That is, the examiner’s analysis, if left
unrebutted, would be sufficient to support a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103. The burden is, therefore, upon appellants to come
forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the
examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants have
presented several substantive arguments in response to the
examiner’s rejection. Therefore, we consider obviousness based
upon the totality of the evidence and the relative persuasiveness
of the arguments.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007