Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come
forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant 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, Appellant offers several arguments in support
of the contention that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Initially, Appellant contends
(Brief, pages 6 and 7) that lack of motivation exists for the
Examiner’s proposed combination since, in contrast to Hellhake
which describes a communication return path from the end user to
the network broadcast system, Harper provides for only one-way
communication. In Appellant’s view (id. at 7), “ . . . if
Hellhake and Harper were somehow combined, the result would be
unworkable and frustrate the purposes purportedly solved by one
or the other of the cited documents.” Appellant further
amplifies this argument at page 3 of the Reply Brief where it is
asserted “ . . . a broadcast suitable for use with Harper differs
from that of Hellhake, and thus, the proposed combination will
frustrate one or the other of Harper and Hellhake.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007