Appeal No. 2006-1450
Application No. 09/933,786
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejections. We have likewise reviewed and taken into
consideration Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief
along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection
and arguments in the rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
After full consideration of the record before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 21 and 22 are
properly rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Groves.
We further agree with the Examiner that dependent claims 3-10,
13-20 and 23-33 are properly rejected over the combination of
Groves and Prioste. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-33 for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 USC 103, is the Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 11,
12, 21 and 22 as Being Unpatentable over Groves Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007