Appeal 2007-1568
Application 09/900,375
together with representative claim 1. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 2-4, 6-7 and 12-13
Appellant reiterates the above arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 2 through 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13, as being unpatentable over the
combination of Hepp in view of Nixon. (Br. 13.) As discussed in the
preceding section, we do not find any such deficiencies in Hepp for Nixon to
remedy. Hepp teaches the scheduled activities.
Further, Appellant alleges that there is no motivation to combine the
references. (Id.) We note that Appellant’s mere allegations, unsupported by
any evidence, do not amount to an argument that particularly shows how the
Examiner’s reliance on the cited combination of Hepp and Nixon does not
render the cited claims unpatentable. In our view, such allegations do not
rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness against the cited
claims. We therefore affirm this rejection.
Claims 9-11
Appellant reiterates the above arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 9 through 11 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hepp
in view of Narayanaswami. (Br. 14.) As discussed in the preceding section,
we do not find any such deficiencies in Hepp for Narayanaswami to remedy.
Further, Appellant alleges that there is no motivation to combine the
references. (Id.) We note that Appellant’s mere allegations, unsupported by
any evidence, do not amount to an argument that particularly shows how the
Examiner’s reliance on the cited combination of Hepp and Narayanaswami
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013