Appeal No. 2004-2043
Application 09/312,919
multi-function and programmable.
C) With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argues
“commercial success, failure of others, and long-felt need” at
pages 9-10 of the reply brief. We find Appellants argument
unpersuasive. Appellants have failed to show any connection
between their submitted evidence (Exhibits C, D, E) and the
features found in the claim. We refer the Appellants to
MPEP § 716.03-716.04 for a discussion of the requirements and
case law with regards to commercial success, failure of others,
and long-felt need.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed at B) above, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Other Issues
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review
body, rather than a place of initial examination. Therefore, we
have not reviewed claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13 to determine whether
these claims are patentable over the Yokozawa patent. We leave
it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any other
rejections based on the references.
We also note that the amendment filed March 23, 2001 (Paper
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007