Appeal No. 2006-1690
Application No. 10/154,185
examiner's prima facie case. Appellants did not persuasively rebut the
examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, but merely noted that the addition of
El Malki fails to cure the deficiencies of Park in connection with claims 1, 11, 14,
and 21. The rejection is therefore sustained.
Likewise, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Park in view of
Sankaran. We find that (1) the examiner has established at least a prima facie
case of obviousness for these claims on page 9 of the answer, and (2) appellants
have not persuasively rebutted the examiner's prima facie case. The rejection is
therefore sustained.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4-8,
10-16, 18, 19, 21, and 23-27, but we have not sustained the examiner's rejection
of claims 2, 20, and 22. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
1, 2, and 4-27 is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007