Appeal No. 2004-1854
Application No. 08/971,851
Furthermore, while it is conceded that Corn discloses an oval
shaped pollution control element, appellants argue that Corn does
not supply any of the deficiencies of JP ‘916 as discussed above
(id.). Therefore, we adopt our comments from above with regard to
appellants’ previous arguments.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in the
Answer, we determine that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness based on the reference evidence. Based
on the totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness. Accordingly,
we affirm the examiner’s rejections based on JP ‘916 as the primary
or sole reference, further in view of JP ‘313 and Corn.
B. The Rejections based on JP ‘313 in view of JP ‘916 or Corn
We adopt the examiner’s factual findings and conclusions of
law as noted above and in the Answer for the same reasons as
discussed above, since the same reference evidence has been
presented, albeit in a different order. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d
491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961)(where rejection is
predicated on two references, each containing pertinent disclosure,
the order of the references is of no significance, but merely a
matter of exposition).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007