Appeal No. 1997-0211
Application No. 08/252,288
Appellant does not identify the specific language in claim 1 to support this argument,
and we find no clear support in the language of claim 1 for this detailed argument.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with
evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149,F.3d 1350, 1355,
47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As discussed above, appellant has not
adequately rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness nor provided any
evidence of secondary considerations. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 6-8 grouped therewith.
GROUP 2
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 3 (GROUP 2). (See brief at pages 20-22.) We
agree with appellant that the Examiner has not addressed the limitations of claim 3. While
we do find that Maddali does teach the use of integrators in the power inverter
system, the Examiner has not addressed these limitations. The Examiner has merely
incorporated the final rejection into the answer and provided no responses to the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007