Appeal No. 2006-2225
Application No. 09/815,439
persuasively rebut the examiner's prima facie case. Appellant did not persuasively
rebut the examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, but merely noted that the addition
of Bodnar fails to cure the deficiencies of Herz and Kiger in connection with certain
limitations of claims 1 and 24 [brief, pages 11-13]. The rejection is therefore sustained.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Kiger and further in view of Bates.
We will sustain the examiner's rejection. As noted above, we find that the examiner has
established at least a prima facie case of obviousness that appellant has not
persuasively rebutted. Specifically, the examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of
Herz and Kiger, (2) pointed out the perceived differences between those references and
the claimed invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why the references would
have been modified to arrive at the claimed invention [answer, pages 16 and 17].
Appellant, however, did not persuasively rebut the examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness, but merely noted that the addition of Bates fails to cure the deficiencies of
Herz and Kiger in connection with certain limitations of claims 1 and 24 [brief, pages 13
and 14]. The rejection is therefore sustained.
Likewise, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Kiger, Bodnar, and further in
view of Raman. Appellant did not present any arguments pertaining to this rejection.2
2
2See brief, pages 3 and 4 (omitting the examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23 in the grounds of rejection to
be reviewed on appeal). See also answer, page 2 (acknowledging appellant’s statement of the grounds of
rejection to be reviewed on appeal as correct).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007