Appeal No. 2006-2981
Application No. 10/099,342
violation condition. Because Ponert fails to expressly or inherently disclose all
limitations of claim 16, the examiner’s anticipation rejection will not be sustained.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ponert in view of Hsu. We will
sustain this rejection. 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 Ponert, (2) pointed
out the perceived differences between Ponert and the claimed invention, and (3)
reasonably indicated how and why Ponert would have been modified to arrive at
the claimed invention [answer, pages 3 and 4]. Once the examiner has satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden then
shifts to appellant to present evidence or arguments that 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 if independent claim 21 is
allowed, then dependent claims 22, 24, and 25 should be allowed [reply brief,
page 2]. The rejection is therefore sustained.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner's rejection with respect to
claims 21-27. We have not, however, sustained the examiner’s rejection with
respect to claims 16 and 17. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 16, 17, and 21-27 is affirmed-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007