Appeal 2007-1780
Application 10/340,127
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 with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16 as
being unpatentable over Grasso in view of Schwab.
Dependent claims 17 and 20
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed to
the separate patentability of dependent claims 17 and 20. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over
Grasso in view of Schwab for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to independent claim 16. See In re Young, 927 F.2d at 590. See also 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
DECISION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 7, 16, 17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 7, 16, 17, and 20 is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013