Appeal No. 2005-0666
Application 10/044,678
The examiner responds that appellant has attacked each
reference individually and has not responded to the collective
teachings of the applied prior art. The examiner also explains
again how the claimed invention is rendered unpatentable by the
collective teachings of Contreras and Dandia [answer, pages 5-8].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6
because appellant has failed to provide a persuasive argument in
response to the rejection. Appellant’s arguments in the brief
essentially amount to nothing more than an assertion that neither
Contreras nor Dandia individually discloses the claimed
invention. The rejection, however, is not based on anticipation.
Instead, the rejection is based on the collective teachings of
the applied references. Appellant has failed to rebut any of the
examiner’s findings with respect to the obviousness of combining
the teachings of Contreras with Dandia to arrive at the claimed
invention. Since we find that the examiner has at least
established a prima facie case of obviousness, and since
appellant has offered no arguments in rebuttal to the rejection
as formulated by the examiner, then we find that this record
supports the examiner’s rejection.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007