Appeal No. 1998-1917
Application No. 08/766,984
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view
that such analysis carefully points out the teachings of the
Kikuchi and Sato references, reasonably indicates the
perceived differences between this prior art and the claimed
invention, and provides reasons as to how and why the prior
art teachings would have been modified and/or combined to
arrive at the claimed invention. In our opinion, 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. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
In response, Appellants assert the Examiner’s failure to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since proper
motivation for the proposed combination of Kikuchi and Sato
has not been established. In Appellants’ view (Brief, page
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007