Appeal 2006-2726
Application 10/213,507
independent claims 11 and 15. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12, 16-19,
23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hanamura in view of Stankewitz and further in view of Atsushi. We find
that the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness
of those claims that Appellants have not persuasively rebutted. Specifically,
the Examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of Hanamura and Stankewitz,
(2) noted the perceived differences between these references and the claimed
invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why the references would
have been modified by the teachings of Atsushi to arrive at the claimed
invention (Answer 5-10). Once the Examiner has presented 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 reiterated that the Examiner’s proposed
modification renders Hanamura unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. For
the reasons previously discussed, the Examiner’s rejection of 10, 12, 16-19,
23, and 28 is sustained.
DECISION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect
to all claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 10-13, 15-19, 21-24, and 26-30 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013