Appeal No. 2004-2198
Application No. 10/047,925
Nevertheless, we do agree with appellant’s observation at the bottom of
page 3 of the reply brief that the reference’s description of the term bricks
is not at all clear. Lastly, we observe that the reply brief makes no
arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Notwithstanding our view that the examiner’s reliance upon Official Notice
is generally to be strongly discouraged, we agree with the views expressed
by the examiner at pages 8 and 9 of the final rejection and repeated at
pages 8 and 9 of the answer that the subject matter of claims 4-6 would
have been obvious to the artisan within the teaching value of CACI Limited
Home Page.
We agree with the examiner’s views expressed at pages 7 and 8 of
the answer that appellant has essentially not challenged the facts asserted
by Official Notice as required by MPEP 2144.04(C) as printed at page 7 of
the answer. We read appellant’s arguments in the same manner as does
the examiner that appellant has merely challenged the motivation to
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007