Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
(2)
Examiner’s Prima Facie Case
The Examiner’s prima facie case is set forth at pages 5-7 of the Answer.
(3)
Appellant’s Response and Argument in the Brief
Appellant argues at page 23 of the Brief that “the Examiner has failed to
provide the supporting documentary proof requested by Applicant” with respect to
the taking of Official Notice in “the February 10, 2004 Office Action.”
Despite a general allegation of lack of motivation and hindsight (Br. 21),
Appellant makes no further specific arguments in the Brief. We do not deem
Appellant’s general allegation to be an argument.
(4)
The Examiner’s Response in the Answer
With respect to Appellant’s request for documentary proof, the Examiner
responds at pages 5-7 of the Answer with specific examples.
Although we do not deem it necessary to respond to Appellant’s general
allegation of lack of motivation and hindsight, the Examiner does respond at page
8 of the Answer. The Examiner rebuts the allegation by pointing to Ehlers at
column 21, lines 14-15, which states a motivation of obtaining the maximum
benefit for the occupant or utility bill payer.
(5)
Appellant’s Rebuttal in the Reply
Appellant rebuts the Examiner’s response at pages 4-5 of the Reply.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013