Appeal No. 2006-1628
Application No. 09/840,082
separately argued the patentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, and
17, these claims fall with the independent claims. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(vii).
We now consider the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on the admitted prior art in view of Murade and further in view of Yanagawa. We
find that the examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness
of this claim that appellants have not persuasively rebutted. Here, the examiner
has (1) pointed out the teachings of the admitted prior art and Murade, (2)
pointed out the perceived differences between these references and the claimed
invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why these references would
have been modified to arrive at the claimed invention [answer, page 7]. Once the
examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness, the burden then shifts to appellants to present evidence or
arguments that persuasively rebut the examiner's prima facie case. Appellants
did not persuasively rebut the examiner's prima facie case of obviousness.
Although we find that the teachings of the admitted prior art are merely
cumulative to the teachings of Murade for the reasons noted previously, the
examiner has nevertheless established a prima facie case of obviousness based
solely on the teachings of Murade and Yanagawa. We will therefore sustain the
examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 21 based on Murade and Yanagawa.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007