Appeal No. 2001-1982
Application 08/892,716
brief (Paper No. 24) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a
statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant argues in the briefs: (1) the references do not
provide the motivation to combine the two references and the
rationale for combining the references is nonexistent (Br5-7;
RBr4-7); (2) the examiner failed to make specific findings on the
level of ordinary skill in the art (Br7-8; RBr2-4); (3) the
rejection is defective for failing to provide a sufficient
factual analysis (Br8-10; RBr7-9). The main brief barely touches
the teachings of the references or the claimed subject matter
and, indeed, appellant states that "[f]or purposes of this
appeal, which involves procedural and administrative law issues,
the technical details of Ahn's invention are not central to the
outcome" (Br2). We have seen these same boilerplate arguments in
other briefs and are left with the impression that the arguments
would be made regardless of what the rejection said. These
arguments do not persuade us of error in the rejection.
By contrast, at the oral hearing, counsel for appellant cut
right to the merits and honed in on claim 1's limitation of "a
gate landing formed on a CRT seating surface of said front case"
(emphasis added). It was argued that Boudreau does not teach
this limitation and the combination with Arai would not teach the
limitation. This agrees with our own analysis of the claims and
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007