Appeal No. 2006-2184
Application No. 09/819,427
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 34 and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dedrick in view of Sullivan and
further in view of Moshfeghi. We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims
34 and 35. We find that the examiner has established at least a prima facie case
of obviousness that appellants have not persuasively rebutted. Here, the
examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of Dedrick and Sullivan, (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 in light of the teachings of Moshfeghi to arrive at the claimed
invention [answer, pages 10 and 11]. 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, but merely noted that the addition of
Moshfeghi fails to cure the deficiencies of the Dedrick/Sullivan combination in
connection with claim 31. The rejection of claims 34 and 35 is therefore
sustained.
As we indicated, the collective teachings of Dedrick and Sullivan
reasonably teach and suggest all claimed limitations. We reach this conclusion,
however, even if Sullivan were cited as the base reference and Dedrick as the
secondary reference. In fact, Sullivan actually anticipates at least claim 1. In this
regard, we note that Sullivan teaches providing personalized customer support
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007