Appeal No. 1999-0225
Application No. 08/563,188
transfer means and integrally assembled together.” (Answer, pages
4 and 5). To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Lang
and asserts (Id. at 5):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of [sic] the invention
was made to modify the editing system of Schnorf by
incorporating the teaching of directly connecting
the disk, tape and first and second input/output means
having all elements integrally assembled together as
taught by Lang in order to provide an editing system
that is lighter and easier to carry by eliminating
multiple housings of each element.
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that
such analysis carefully points out the teachings of the applied
Schnorf and Lang 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007