Ex Parte Coffland - Page 10

                  Appeal 2007-1743                                                                                           
                  Application 10/131,550                                                                                     
                                                                                                                            
                  locations,7 the skilled artisan would nonetheless readily glean from Vaios                                 
                  that such surveillance monitoring would have been, at the very least, an                                   
                  obvious alternative to using the system for video conferencing.                                            
                         For at least these reasons, we find that it would have been obvious to                              
                  the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to combine Vaios with                                     
                  McDougall.                                                                                                 
                         Lastly, we note that Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the                                    
                  Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of representative claim 1 for yet                               
                  another reason.  In the Briefs, Appellant merely alleges that the cited prior                              
                  art lacks various enumerated limitations found in the independent claims.                                  
                  Although these specific limitations are listed on Pages 14-17 of the Brief and                             
                  Page 6 of the Reply Brief, there is no specific supporting analysis explaining                             
                  why these specific limitations are not taught or suggested by the references                               
                  apart from a mere conclusory assertion.  Such conclusory statements,                                       
                  however, hardly persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of                                      
                  obviousness.8                                                                                              
                                                                                                                            
                  7 We emphasize that we are merely assuming this position solely for the sake                               
                  of argument.  As we indicated previously, we find that McDougall amply                                     
                  discloses video “surveillance” giving the term its broadest reasonable                                     
                  interpretation.  See P. 7, supra, of this opinion.                                                         
                  8 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out                                   
                  what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate                                       
                  patentability of the claim.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 (noting that replies                             
                  to Office actions must specifically point out how the claim language                                       
                  patentably distinguishes from the cited references); In re Baxter Travenol                                 
                  Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not                                
                  the function of [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit] to                                     
                  examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for                              
                  nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”).                                                             
                                                             10                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013