Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
evidence or argument is submitted by applicant in response, patentability is
determined on the totality of the record by preponderance of evidence with
due consideration to persuasiveness of argument.” Id. at 1445, 24 USPQ2d
at 1444.
Here, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants have failed to argue
the limitations recited in claim 7. As discussed supra, we find no
deficiencies in Wani and Kida with respect to independent claim 1, from
which claim 7 depends. Thus, we find Appellants have not met the burden
of coming forward with evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s legal
conclusion of obviousness. Because we conclude the Examiner has met the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, which has not been
overcome by any convincing arguments from Appellants, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7 as being unpatentable over Wani
in view of Kida and Prince.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner’s rejection of all claims on appeal.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-8 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013