Appeal No. 2001-0079
Application No. 09/092,702
We next consider the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 7 and 19 based on the combination of Gross and Oda and
note that, while we found Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive
with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10, 20-22,
25, and 26 discussed supra, we reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 7 and 19. Our review of the Examiner’s stated
position (Answer, page 7) reveals that the Examiner has pointed
out the teachings of the prior art references, has reasonably
indicated the perceived differences between this applied prior
art and the claimed invention, and has provided reasons as to how
and why this prior art would have been modified and/or combined
to arrive at the claimed invention. In our view, 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. Arguments which Appellants could have made but
elected not to make in the Briefs have not been considered in
this decision (note 37 CFR § 1.192).
Appellants’ arguments in response (Brief, page 6; Reply
Brief, page 2) focus on the contention that the applied Gross and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007