Appeal No. 2001-1421
Application No. 09/128,226
or fall with its base claim. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to independent claim 1, the representative
claim for Appellants first suggested grouping (including claims
1-3, 6, 7, and 14)2, after reviewing the Examiner’s analysis
(Answer, pages 4 and 5), it is our view that such analysis
carefully points out the teachings of the Goossen and Harper
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 and/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
2 Although Appellants’ grouping at page 3 of the Brief includes
dependent claim 5 as part of this group, claim 5 should properly be grouped
with its base claim, i.e., dependent claim 4.
-5–5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007