Appeal No. 2002-0807
Application No.08/672,588
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis (Answer, pages 4-6),
it is our view that such analysis carefully points out the
teachings of the Crawford, Laursen, and Fin 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 which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief
have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative claim 27, Appellants’
arguments in response to the obviousness rejection assert that
the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art references. As summarized
at page 7 of the Brief, Appellants contend that “[t]there is no
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007