Appeal 2007-2220
Application 09/896,231
combinable with the relevant facts from the other cited references in arriving
at the claimed invention. We find no reversible error in this approach.
Moreover, we conclude that the Examiner has adequately established a
prima facie case of obviousness on Pages 8-22 of the Answer that
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted.
For at least the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 7-18, 21, 26-50, and 53-61.
Other Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of (1)
claim 25 over Haddad, Hassell, Seazholtz, and Kitsukawa; (2) claims 51 and
52 over Haddad, Hassell, Seazholtz, and Okamoto; (3) claims 63, 65, and
6615 over Haddad and Wahl; (4) claim 70 over Haddad; (5) Claim 71 over
Haddad and Okamoto; and (6) claim 73 over Haddad and Seazholtz, we find
that the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness
of those claims that Appellants have not persuasively rebutted.
Specifically, the Examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of the
references, (2) noted the perceived differences between the references and
the claimed invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why the
references would have been combined to arrive at the claimed invention
(Answer 22-26). Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a
15 Although the Examiner indicates that only claim 66 is rejected in the
statement of the rejection, the Examiner nevertheless specifically refers to
independent claim 63 and claim 65 in the text of the rejection (Answer 24-
25). Since claim 66 depends from claim 65 which likewise depends from
independent claim 63, and in view of the Examiner’s specific reference to
these claims in the rejection, we presume that the Examiner intended to
include claims 63 and 65 in this rejection.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013