Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
because McLuckey is allegedly outside the scope and content of the prior art
(Id.).
We note that the Examiner relies upon Hoyt as teaching a vehicle
carrying an electrical load (See Answer 5). The Examiner’s rejection is
based upon the combination of Veliadis, Hoyt, and McLuckey. Regarding
Appellants’ allegation that McLuckey is outside the scope and content of the
prior art, we note that Appellants fail to provide any explanation to support
such a conclusion with respect to this rejection (See Br. 16). Thus, we find
Appellants have failed to traverse the Examiner’s rejection (i.e., the
Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness) by explaining why the
Examiner erred. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 52 as being unpatentable over Veliadis in view of Hoyt
and McLuckey.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to claims 3, 8, 22, 36, 43, and 53-56 in this group on the basis
of the selected claim alone. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims as being unpatentable over Veliadis in view of Hoyt and
McLuckey for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
representative claim 52.
Dependent claims 16, 41, and 57
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 41, and 57 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Veliadis in view of Hoyt, and
further in view of Gregory and McLuckey.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013