Appeal No. 2006-2461
Application No. 09/991,020
environmental tests that expose devices under test to various temperature,
pressure, and humidity conditions are known in the art [id.]. The examiner then
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to include an environmental test to determine whether the
device met or exceeded certain environmental tolerances in addition to
operational tolerances [id.].
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 20. We find that (1) the
examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness, and (2)
appellant has not persuasively rebutted the examiner's prima facie case. In this
regard, appellant merely notes that the addition of the admitted prior art fails to
cure the deficiencies of Akasheh in connection with independent claim 16 [brief,
page 16; reply brief, page 15]. Appellant adds that the alleged admitted prior art
fails to disclose or imply an environmental test [id.]. But such a mere conclusory
statement without supporting analysis or evidence hardly rebuts the examiner’s
prima facie case – a position that we find reasonable. The rejection of claim 20
is therefore sustained.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner's rejection with respect to all
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-24
is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007