Appeal No. 2003-1991 3
Application No. 09/412,258
THE REJECTION
Claims 3 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Benneville.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the examiner for the reasons stated in the Answer and those
set forth herein that the rejection of claims 3 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is well
founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.
As an initial matter, it is the appellants’ position that, “[c]laims 3 and 30 be
grouped separately.” See Brief, page 3. Accordingly, separate consideration will be given
to each of the two claims to the extent required in our decision. See 37
CFR1.192(c)(7)(2002).
The Rejection under Section 103(a)
There is no dispute that the reference to Benneville is sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed subject matter. The appellants readily
concede that, “the subject matter of pending claim 3 and 30 is prima facie obvious over
the disclosure of Benneville.” See Brief, page 5.
Accordingly, the burden of proof of showing patentability shifts to the appellants to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007