Appeal No. 97-0320
Application No. 08/096,261
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered. See 37 CFR §
1.192(a).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner has pointed out
the teachings of Müller and Mizuno, has pointed out the
perceived differences between this prior art and the claimed
invention, and has reasonably indicated how and why Müller and
Mizuno would have been modified and/or combined 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 Appellant to
come forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant has 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.
Appellant initially attacks the Examiner's combination of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007