Appeal 2007-0469
Application 10/299,618
the Examiner’s findings regarding Hamalainen’s teachings regarding XML
and XSL or the rationale for combining the references – a position that we
find reasonable.
Since Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness for claims 7, 9-11, and 27, the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims is therefore sustained. Moreover, since Appellant
has not separately argued the patentability of claims 20, 22, 24, 25, 31, and
32, the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is likewise sustained.3 See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Likewise, we will sustain (1) the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 13 over the teachings of Hicks in view of Ritchie, and (2) the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 14 over the teachings of Hicks in
view of Marmor. We find that (1) the Examiner has established at least a
prima facie case of obviousness for these claims (Answer 10-11), and (2)
Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 13 and 14 are therefore sustained.
3 We note in passing that no antecedent basis exists for “the first transform”
and “the second transform” in claims 24 and 25 respectively. Because the
parties did not raise this issue on appeal, it is not before us. In an ex parte
appeal, "the [B]oard . . . is basically a board of review - we review . . .
rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d
1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). Accordingly, we leave resolution of this issue to
the Examiner and the Appellant.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013