Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 13
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 39 for the
reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. We agree with the
examiner that the flow chart shown in Figure 7 of Brichta
provides a series of potential corrective measures in the order
of decreasing desirability. Appellants have failed to
specifically rebut the examiner’s explanation as to why Figure 7
of Brichta meets the claimed invention.
We now consider the rejection of claims 35-37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Brichta taken alone. The examiner has indicated how he finds the
claimed invention to be unpatentable over the teachings of
Brichta [answer, pages 17-18]. The examiner’s analysis and
explanation are sufficient to have at least established a prima
facie case of obviousness. Appellants have not specifically
responded to this rejection. In fact, appellants have indicated
that these claims should be grouped with claim 33 [brief, page
4]. Since the examiner has established a prima facie case of the
obviousness of claims 35-37, and since appellants have not
presented any additional arguments with respect to these claims,
then we sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims based
upon the rejection and the comments made above with respect to
claim 33.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007