Appeal 2006-2735
Application 10/758,552
reference flows logically from their having been individually taught, thus
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Kerkhoven,
626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). In light of the
foregoing and for the reasons expressed in the Answer, it is our
determination that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the argued claims on appeal.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight
in combining the teachings of Igarashi and Silver (Br. 5). This argument is
not persuasive for the reasons set forth above and in the Answer.
Claims 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combined teachings of Igarashi, Silver, and Chintawar. In response to
this ground of rejection, Appellants presented arguments directed towards
claims 13-17 and 20 (Br. 6). The arguments presented by Appellants are
substantially the same as those presented in the rejection discussed above.
Appellants have not presented arguments regarding the Examiner’s
motivation for combining the teachings of Igarashi, Silver, and Chintawar.
In support of the stated rejection, the Examiner has presented factual
determinations regarding the suitability of combining the teachings of
Igarashi, Silver, and Chintawar. (See Answer 6-7). Thus, for the reasons
presented above in our discussion of the rejection of claims 1-8, 11-13, 19,
and 20 and the reasons presented by the Examiner, we will uphold the
rejection of claims 14-17.
CONCLUSION
The prior art rejections of claims 1-8, 11-17, 19 and 20, have been
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013