Appeal 2006-0580
Application 09/911,024
Mossberg publication shows the patentability of claims 3 to 66 is without
merit because the declaration was not presented with the Brief, and the
Examiner never withdrew Mossberg as a reference of record.
Appellants’ argument (Request 2) that “Appellant’s APPEAL BRIEF
explained how the Examiner has already made an administrative agency
fact-finding that the invention of claims 3 to 66 exhibits patentable synergy
vis the prior art of record” is likewise without merit because the referenced
statements by the Examiner never discussed any “patentable” synergy of the
invention set forth in claims 3 to 66.
Appellants’ arguments (Request 2 and 3) that they presented
arguments in the Brief explaining the nonobviousness of claims 3 to 66 are
equally without merit since Appellants never explained how the limitations
of the noted claims are patentable over the combined teachings of the
applied references. Arguments pointing out the individual shortcomings in
each of the applied references are not effective in overcoming a prima facie
case of obviousness.
Appellants’ request for rehearing has been granted to the extent that
our decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect
to making any modifications to the decision.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007