Appeal No. 2005-2569
Application No. 10/200,828
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant has argued that the claims should be considered separately and
presented arguments to these groupings. Therefore, we will address appellant’s
groupings as the arguments are set forth in the brief. (Brief at page 5.) After reviewing
the examiner's analysis, it is our opinion that the stated position is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon appellant to come
forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the examiner's prima
facie case. Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived (see 37 CFR §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007