Appeal No. 2005-0648
Application No. 09/824,980
In re Neal, 481 F.2d 1346, 1347, 179 USPQ 56, 57 (CCPA 1973).
The appellants seem to believe that nonobviousness is reflected
on the record of this appeal by virtue of “the age of the
references coupled with the failure to solve the problem (i.e.,
more effective power steering systems) in light of the presumed
knowledge of the references” (reply brief, page 4). However, the
record before us contains no evidence of “the failure to solve
the problem (i.e., more effective power steering systems)” (id.).
For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, we are
convinced that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to appealed independent claim 1 which
the appellants have failed to rebut with argument or evidence of
nonobviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We hereby sustain,
therefore, the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of independent
claim 1 and of nonargued dependent claims 2-5 and 8 as being
unpatentable over Kliman in view of the admitted prior art and
further in view of Nishiyama.
THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 9-13, 16-19, 22 AND 23 OVER THE ABOVE
DISCUSSED REFERENCES AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF MCCANN AND ACKERMANN
As acknowledged by the examiner, Kliman and Nishiyama do not
disclose the requirement of appealed independent claims 9 and 16
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007