Appeal 2007-1488
Application 10/809,072
1 Rejection III: Giamei in View of Monte ‘468, Monte ‘469, or Burd
2 The Examiner found that the only difference between the invention
3 recited in appealed claim 1 and the system of Giamei lies in the use of grain
4 selector support. This finding is not disputed. The Examiner then found that
5 the Monte references and Burd all teach the use of a selector support to
6 assume the load. Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that it
7 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
8 Giamei’s system with a selector support as shown in Monte ‘468, Monte
9 ‘469, or Burd in order to lessen the load on the crystal selector.
10 Applicants’ only contention appears to be that there is no motivation
11 or suggestion to combine. (Br. 11; R. Br. 3-4.) Even if this were the only
12 test that is appropriate for determining obviousness, we disagree. Monte
13 ‘468, Monte ‘469, and Burd provide a reason for combining their teachings
14 with those of Giamei, namely to ease the load on the crystal selector.
15
16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 On the record before us, Applicants have failed to rebut the prima
18 facie case established by the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the
19 art would have found the subject matter of appealed claims 1-12, 15, 17-30,
20 and 33-35 obvious over the prior art.
21 We therefore affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of all
22 appealed claims.
23
24
25
26
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013