Appeal 2007-1570
Application 10/646,720
Claims 39-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Barada in view of Carraras.
Claims 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Barada in view of Zumbach.
Claims 39-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Barada in view of Zumbach.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Barada in view of Carraras, and further in
view of Nemeth.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Barada in view of Zumbach, and further
in view of Nemeth.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
Motivation
Appellant argues there is no motivation to combine Barada with
Carraras or Zumbach because: (1) Carraras and Zumbach are non analogous
art to the claimed invention, (2) the Examiner has relied upon impermissible
hindsight, (3) the applied references do not solve the same problem
presented by the inventor, and (4), the combinations proffered by the
Examiner would make Barada unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and/or
change Barada’s principle of operation (Br. 15-20). Appellant concludes the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (Br. 20).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013