Appeal No. 1998-0061
Application No. 08/364,101
for combining the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner. We disagree for the specific reasons stated supra.
With regard to the argument in the second full paragraph
on page 15 of the main brief, we find no mention of the
British Fraden reference in columns 1 and 2 of the Nedivi
specification or anywhere else in the Nedivi patent. As noted
supra, Fraden does not expressly disclose the particular type
of processor for analyzing the plural-component voltage signal
transmitted from the piezoelectric pad.
For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that the
examiner’s evidence of obviousness is sufficient to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 1 and
11 as well as other appealed claims. This prima facie case
has not been rebutted by appellant. Accordingly, we will
sustain the
§ 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11.
We will also sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of
dependent claims 2 through 8, 10, 12 through 18 and 20.
Merely reiterating what each of these dependent claims recites
as appellant has done on pages 12-14 of the main brief does
not amount to an argument that these dependent claims are
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007