Appeal 2007-1867
Application 09/864,113
1 (See Rasmusson, supra). Insofar as enabling one of ordinary skill to practice the
2 steps in claim 1, this would have been accomplished by following the directions in
3 the Odigo web site pages. Therefore, we find this Appellants’ argument to be
4 unpersuasive.
5
6 Appellants’ Argument (3) that the Examiner improperly combined references
7 in the basis for a 35 U.S.C. § 102(b rejection.
8 The Appellants contend that
9 If treated as an individual references under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
10 each must teach all of the claimed elements, steps, and
11 limitations, which they fail to do as previously discussed. And,
12 to treat them collectively as a single reference under 35 U.S.C.
13 § 102 improperly circumvents the requirements of establishing
14 a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which
15 fails to afford Appellant the opportunity to address them
16 individually for their individual teachings, or to rebut any
17 presumptions of conditions for obviousness.
18 (Br. 11, Last full ¶.) The Examiner has not rejected the claims over the references.
19 Instead, the Examiner has rejected the claims over the web site Odigo as prior art.
20 To provide evidence that the single web site Odigo meets the limitations of the
21 claims, the Examiner has provided two references, each of which discusses aspects
22 of that same single Odigo web site as prior art. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection is
23 not either of the two examples discussed in the above Appellants’ contention, but
24 another, valid, example of a rejection over novelty. Therefore, we find this
25 Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013