Appeal No. 2002-1578
Application No. 08/814,928
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)].
Appellants’ arguments in response to the obviousness rejection
based on the combination of Leak and Terada 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. After careful review of the
applied Leak and Terada references in light of the arguments of
record, we find Appellants’ assertions to be unpersuasive. In our
view, Appellants’ arguments unpersuasively focus on the individual
differences between the limitations of representative claim 31 and
each of the applied references. It is apparent, however, from the
Examiner’s line of reasoning in the Answer, that the basis for the
obviousness rejection is the combination of Leak and Terada. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007