Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)). Therefore, we look to Appellants’ Brief to show error in
the proffered prima facie case.
ANALYSIS
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 20,
21, 23, 24, 26-32, 34, 35, 37, 42, 44-49, and 51 as being unpatentable over
the teachings of Veliadis in view of Hoyt. Since Appellants’ arguments
have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we
will select independent claim 20 as the representative claim because we find
it to be the broadest claim in this group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Appellants argue inter alia that: (1) Hoyt is outside the scope and
content of the prior art that may be asserted against the present invention, (2)
Hoyt teaches away from the present invention, (3) Hoyt was improperly
combined with the other references, (4) the Examiner has improperly relied
upon hindsight, and (5) Veliadis fails to teach all the limitations of the
claims, i.e., because Veliadis is allegedly not combinable with Hoyt (which
teaches a satellite (vehicle) having an electrical load), a vehicle having an
electrical load is not taught by the Veliadis (Br. 8).
More particularly, Appellants contend that Hoyt teaches away from
the present invention because Hoyt operates only in space (i.e., outside the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013