Appeal No. 1999-2687
Application 08/174,353
changes in our prior decision for the reasons which follow.
A brief review of the prosecution of this appeal is
instructive. Appellants filed an appeal brief in which each of
the examiner’s rejections was argued to some extent. The
examiner’s answer in response to this appeal brief responded to
each of the arguments in the brief in a manner that was complete
and persuasive. Appellants filed a reply brief in which they
stated the following:
The Examiner’s Answer clarifies the
Examiner’s position in regard to many of the
rejections.
The Applicants’ primary position on Appeal is
that one skilled in the art would not have
been motivated to combine the disclosure of
Wilson with that of Brownstein and/or Hamada
et al. to achieve the present invention
[reply brief, page 1].
The reply brief did not address any of the specific responses
made by the examiner in the answer, but only addressed the
propriety of the combination of references used by the examiner.
The previous decision essentially affirmed the examiner’s
rejections because appellants did not respond to the persuasive
arguments of the examiner set forth in the answer, and because we
agreed with the examiner that there was appropriate motivation to
combine the prior art teachings in the manner proposed by the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007