Appeal 2006-3143
Application 09/897,383
Since we find that all limitations of independent claims 25, 33, 34,
and 41 are expressly or inherently disclosed by Guedalia, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims. Since Appellants have not separately
argued the patentability of dependent claims 26-32 and 35-40, these claims
fall with independent claims 25 and 34. 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)(vii).
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30-32, 39, and
40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guedalia in view of
APA. We find that the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case
of obviousness that Appellants have not persuasively rebutted. Specifically,
the Examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of Guedalia, (2) pointed out
the perceived differences between Guedalia and the claimed invention, and
(3) reasonably indicated how and why Guedalia would have been modified
to arrive at the claimed invention (Answer 7-8). Once the Examiner has
satisfied the burden of presenting 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. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellants did
not persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, but
merely noted that the addition of APA fails to cure the deficiencies of
Guedalia in connection with independent claim 25 (Br. 5-6). The rejection
is therefore sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013