8
As to the rejection of claims 11 through 18 over Gladrow ‘309 combined
with Gladrow ‘818, we summarily affirm the rejection for the reasons stated supra.
We believe that Gladrow ‘309 is cumulative evidence of obviousness, does not
undercut the specific teachings of Gladrow ‘818. In re Kronig 539 F.2d 1300,
190 USPQ 425, 427-428 (CCPA 1976).
Based upon the above analysis, we conclude that the teachings of Gladrow
‘818 in and of itself are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claimed subject matter. For these reasons and since the
appellants have proffered no rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness, we sustain the
examiner’s section 103(a) rejection of the claimed subject matter over Gladrow ‘818
and Gladrow ‘309 combined with Gladrow ‘818. Accordingly, there is no further
need to inquire into the disclosure of Gladrow ‘309.
The Rejection of Claim 19 Over Gladrow ‘309
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner
relies upon a single reference to Gladrow ‘309 to reject the claimed subject matter
and establish a prima facie case of anticipation and/or obviousness.
Our initial inquiry is directed to the scope of the claimed subject matter. During
patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007