Appeal No. 2000-1811
Application No. 08/879,638
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 15 and 16 based on
Semmlow and Woodruff.
Initially, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, and 17, Appellants argue
that our original decision erred in relying on the Examiner’s
interpretation of the end of the cylindrical shaped guide pin 14
of Semmlow as having vertical and horizontal tapered surfaces
since the cylindrical pin terminates at a point. In Appellants’
view, other possibilities exist for the actual shape of the guide
pin end in Semmlow, rendering the Examiner’s interpretation not
necessarily correct.
We find no error, however, in our original decision which
found that the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation of the guide
pin structure of Semmlow established a prima facie case of
anticipation. That is, with all the structural elements present
in the single prior art reference to Semmlow, and in view of
Semmlow’s illustrated configuration of the guide pin end, it is
proper to assume that the prior art structure inherently
possesses Appellants’ functionally defined claim limitation of
aligning a cartridge retrieval mechanism in at least two
dimensions. Upon the Examiner’s determination that the prior art
structure met the functional limitation of the claim, the burden
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007