Appeal 2007-2745
Application 09/761,671
1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted
2 techniques from each of Brown and Bielinski to provide the advantages of each
3 technique in improving overall performance.
4 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing the Examiner erred.
5 Reply Brief
6 We find that the Appellant has made general allegations that the combination
7 of Bielinski and Brown fails to teach or suggest any of the claim limitations of
8 claims 77-103 for the first time in the Reply Brief. A statement which merely
9 points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
10 patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). A general allegation that the
11 art does not teach any of the claim limitations is no more than merely pointing out
12 the claim limitations. Thus, these claims fall along with claim 69.
13 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the Examiner erred
14 in rejecting claims 69-103 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bielinski
15 and Brown.
16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the Examiner erred
18 in rejecting claims 69-103 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the prior
19 art.
20 On this record, the Appellant is not entitled to a patent containing claims
21 69-103.
23
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013