Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 As for Appellants' objection that the Examiner did not mention limitations in a
2 number of claims dependent on claims 1 and 27 (specifically, claims 2, 7–10, 20, 28, 29,
3 31, 33–35, 44, and 47), we observe that the Examiner expressly pointed out where the
4 rejection identified several of the limitations, and that the Examiner asserted that the
5 remaining limitations were also identified in the prior art relied on. (Answer at 2-3.) In
6 their principal brief, Appellants did not specifically deny that Okamoto and St-Pierre
7 teach the limitations recited in these dependent claims. Nor did Appellants clearly argue
8 that these limitations would cause the claimed subject matter to be patentable over the
9 combined teachings of Okamoto and St-Pierre due to unexpected results or other indicia
10 of nonobviousness in the event that a prima facie case of obviousness of the independent
11 claims had been established. Indeed, in their Reply brief, Appellants did not address the
12 Examiner's Answer regarding the rejection of the dependent claims. Our review of the
13 record indicates that the Examiner's representations as to the expressly identified
14 limitations are accurate. In the absence of substantive argument from Appellants, we
15 decline to undertake, sua sponte, a mission of fact-finding as to the teachings of Okamoto
16 and an evaluation of whether those teachings provide an adequate basis for the findings
17 and conclusions set out in the Examiner's Answer.
18 We conclude that Appellants have not shown reversible error by the Examiner in
19 the rejection of claims 1, 27, and the associated dependent claims.
20 Appellants argue against the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 50
21 and 61 on the same basis, i.e., that the combination of Okamoto and St-Pierre teaches
22 away from the claimed invention. (Brief at 11–13, Part I.D.) Appellants do not argue
-19-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013