Appeal 2007-1944
Application 10/631,894
"secondary considerations" supporting an ultimate conclusion of
nonobviousness.
In the present case, Ushiro's vague arguments that the placement of
the secondary cell adjacent to the fuel cell yields unexpected results are not
persuasive. Evidence of obviousness must be weighed against evidence of
nonobviousness. The problem is, Ushiro has not come forward with any
evidence in support of its arguments. Moreover, in response to the
rejections relying on further references, Ushiro did not argue substantively
against the combinations, but rather urged only that the additional references
did not cure the alleged deficiencies of Prasad and Shioya. As we find no
such deficiencies, we AFFIRM all of the Examiner's rejections.
D. Summary
In view of the record and for the foregoing reasons, it is:
ORDERED that the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combined teachings of Prasad, Ohtani, Peterson, and
Shioya is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 26 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Prasad, Shioya,
and Lonka is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claim 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Prasad and Shioya is
AFFIRMED;
-18-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013