Appeal No. 2003-2069
Application 09/414,867
Lagergren. These features included the junction box [claim 24]
and the third through sixth cables [claims 25 and 27]. The
examiner addressed these features and explained why it would have
been obvious to the artisan to incorporate these features from
Colonnello into the flowmeter of Lagergren. Therefore, we do not
agree with appellants’ argument that the examiner failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, appellants
were required to persuasively rebut the examiner’s rejection.
Although appellants do not specifically address any of
the dependent claims on appeal, they point to features of the
claimed invention which are only recited in some of the dependent
claims. These features relate to the junction box and the
additional cables attached to the junction box. The examiner has
addressed these features and explained why it would have been
obvious to the artisan to add these features to the flowmeter of
Lagergren [answer, pages 4-7]. Appellants again simply assert
that there is no teaching of a junction box nor of these
additional cables, but appellants do not address the examiner’s
findings nor explain why the examiner’s findings are erroneous.
Since we find that the examiner has at least established a prima
facie case of obviousness, and since appellants’ arguments do not
persuade us of error in the rejection, we also sustain the
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007