Appeal 2007-1775
Application 09/749,106
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Examiner’s
proffered combination of Bonomi and Pallakoff teaches and/or suggests all
that is claimed. Therefore, we conclude the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness that has not been persuasively rebutted by
Appellants by a showing of insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1 as being unpat`entable over Bonomi in view of Pallakoff is
sustained.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to independent claim 15 in this group on the basis of the
selected claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 15 as being unpatentable over Bonomi in view of
Pallakoff for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to representative
claim 1.
Independent claim 22
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 22 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Bonomi in view of Pallakoff. The
only argument Appellant makes regarding claim 22 is the above-addressed
argument, which we have found unpersuasive, that the references fail to
disclose or suggest the “subscriber group” limitations. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 22 as being unpatentable over
Bonomi in view of Pallakoff is sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013