Appeal No. 96-1614
Application No. 08/236,660
those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to each of the rejections before us, the
examiner has pointed out the teachings of Fong, has pointed
out the perceived differences between Fong and the claimed
invention, and has indicated how and why Fong would have been
modified and/or combined with the teachings of Popowski,
Wickstead or Smalligan to arrive at the claimed invention. 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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007