Appeal No. 2003-2069
Application 09/414,867
appellants argue that there is no showing as to where the
Colonnello additional cables with the junction box are to be
provided in Lagergren when Lagergren lacks any motivation for the
proposed modification [id., page 10]. Although appellants offer
no explanation for this position, this argument has no merit with
respect to independent claim 1 because claim 1 recites no
junction box or signal cables.
The examiner responds to appellants’ arguments with
respect to claim 1 by identifying the sensors and transducers of
Lagergren which allegedly teach the recitations of claim 1
[answer, page 4]. The examiner also proceeds to explain why the
artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
Colonnello with the fuel flowmeter of Lagergren [id., pages 5-7].
Appellants simply respond that there is no motivation for
combining the references in the manner proposed by the examiner
[reply brief].
Although many of appellants’ arguments are nothing more
than general rebuttals of the examiner’s rejection, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or of
claims 2-11 which depend therefrom because the examiner has not
made sufficient findings to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. As noted above, the burden does not shift to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007