Appeal 2007-0998
Application 10/708,066
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222
USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In any event, increasing the horizontal
extent of the lid in the embodiment of Fig. 5 would increase the lid’s surface
area -- surface area that, at least in part, dissipates heat to the ambient as
indicated above.
Since we find the Examiner’s interpretation of “heat sink” as
reasonable, and all other limitations of representative claim 1 are fully met
by Toy, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim. Since
Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of claims 4, 6, 8, 11,
14, 17, and 19, these claims fall with representative claim 1. 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).
The Obviousness Rejections
We will also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of (1)
claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20 over the teachings of Toy, and (2)
claims 2, 9, and 15 over Toy in view of Boyer.
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
Toy, (2) noted the perceived differences between Toy and the claimed
invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why the reference would
have been modified to arrive at the claimed invention (Answer 3-4). 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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013