Appeal No. 1996-1309
Application 08/053,174
has shown that there are reasons to believe that this
functional limitation asserted in claim 21 is an inherent
characteristic of Kato. Therefore, we find that it is the
burden of the Appellants to come forward with evidence to
prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not
possess the characteristic relied on by the Examiner.
Therefore,
we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 as being
anticipated by Kato.
Claims 22 through 26 and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kato and Samoto.
We note that Appellants have indicated on page 5 of
the brief that claims 21 through 23 stand or fall together.
We note that Appellants have not argued the claims separately.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 1995) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg.
14518 (March 17, 1995), which was controlling at the time of
Appellants' filing the brief, states:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007