Appeal 2007-0998
Application 10/708,066
arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case. Here,
Appellants merely noted that the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case
of anticipation based on Toy for the independent claims; therefore the
obviousness rejection based on Toy is likewise erroneous. For the reasons
previously discussed, however, we find the Examiner’s reliance on Toy
reasonable and representative claim 1 fully met by the reference. Therefore,
Appellants have not shown error in the rejections of representative claims 2
and 3. Since Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness, the obviousness rejections are therefore
sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not established that the
Examiner erred in interpreting lid 20 as a “heat sink” as recited in
representative claim 1. Moreover, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10,
12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013