Appeal No. 1997-2682
Application No. 08/382,937
prior art would have been modified and/or combined to arrive
at the claimed invention (Answer, pages 3 and 4). In our
view, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently reasonable that
we find that the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is,
therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence or
arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness. Arguments which Appellants could have
made but elected not to make in the Brief have not been
considered in this decision (note 37 CFR § 1.192).
In response, Appellants assert (Brief, pages 5 and 6)
that no prima facie case of obviousness has been established
by the Examiner since proper motivation for making the
Examiner’s proposed combination has been set forth. In
Appellants’ view, no teaching exists in any of the references
for using a cholesteric filter as part of a light source
having a luminescent layer as claimed. However, the Adams,
Shanks, and Barnik references, which the Examiner has relied
on for a teaching of cholesteric filters, are used in
combination with Welker which clearly teaches a light source
with a luminescent layer. One cannot show nonobviousness by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007