Appeal No. 2000-1868
Application No. 08/730,217
page 7). The examiner has not referred to any disclosure,
teaching or other evidence in the record that would support this
statement. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Furthermore, mere broad statements as to
the motivation to combine references, such as “they are analogous
processes” (Answer, page 12), are not a sufficient showing of the
motivation to combine these references. See In re Dembiczak, 175
F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The
showing of a motivation or suggestion to combine references must
be clear and particular for each rejection. See Dembiczak,
supra. We also note that the examiner has not replied to many of
appellants’ arguments in the Brief, especially concerning the
obviousness-type double patenting rejections (see the Reply
Brief, pages 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief
and Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for either the
rejections based on section 103(a) or those based on the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Accordingly, all of the rejections on appeal are reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007