Appeal No. 97-1277
Application No. 07/820,261
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only
those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant 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 appealed claims, the
examiner has pointed out the teachings of Peters and Klose,
has pointed out the perceived differences between this prior
art and the claimed invention, and has indicated how and why
Peters and Klose would have been modified and/or combined to
arrive at the claimed invention [answer, pages 3-7]. In our
view, regardless of the ultimate outcome of this issue, 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007