Appeal No. 96-1707
Application 08/221,999
obviousness set forth by the Examiner in the rejection. Furthermore, it is our conclusion
that the evidence adduced by the Examiner is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to dependent claims 8, 9, 13, 29 and 30 as grouped by
appellant. (See brief at page 7.)
Appellant argues the mere fact that this article was published and that "all manu-
scripts considered for publication are subject to peer review" is evidence of nonobvi-
ousness. (See brief at pages 15-16.) Appellant further argues that the fact that the article
was published is "evidence (facts) that the Appellant's device has been accepted by
peers, (at a minimum those skilled in the art) as meritorious. The IEEE article is indicative
of professional approval of the merits of the invention." We disagree with appellant's
characterization of the article as "acceptance by peers" or "professional approval" merely
by the publication of the article. We have considered the article as did the Examiner, but
do not find the article by itself to be persuasive. Appellant has not provided any evidence
to support the position that the mere publication of the invention/device amounts to
approval and/or acceptance within the field or by his peers.
Moreover, appellant has not provided any discussion of how the disclosure of the paper
corresponds to the language of claims 7 and 11 beyond a discussion of a "two head
structure . . . in a linear position." (See brief at page 15.)
With respect to the arguments that the Examiner has not addressed the limitations
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007