Appeal No. 2005-0962
Application 09/839,245
rejection and although there are several instances of Official
Notice, we do not find one that corresponds to maximum process
cost. Again, we find Appellant’s position to be the better.
As to Appellant’s other arguments at pages 7-9 of the brief,
we find them persuasive for the reasons set forth by Appellant.
Finally, we note that the Examiner has failed to meet the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
In our review of the Examiner’s final rejection (paper no. 7) we
find that the Examiner has failed to point to concrete evidence
in the record in support of the Examiner’s findings. For
example, pages 3 and 4 of the final rejection fail to indicate
where any of the alleged features are found in the references.
We do not choose to guess what parts of the references the
Examiner believes teach the various claim limitations.
Therefore, for the above reasons, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007