Appeal No. 2002-0001
Application No. 08/989,674
we also reverse this rejection. After considering the examiner’s
positions with respect to this rejection at pages 7 and 8 and 14
through 18 of the answer, we conclude that the answer has not
established a prima facie case of anticipation for the subject
matter of representative claim 1 on appeal, which corresponds to
the subject matter of independent claims 5 and 9 on appeal as
well. The examiner, among these noted pages, makes various
assertions and correlations as to the preamble and certain
portions of the body of independent claims 1, 5 and 9 on appeal.
As argued by appellants at the bottom of page 7 of the brief on
appeal, we also understand the examiner’s position as not setting
forth any assertion at all that the following feature of
representative independent claim 1 is shown and/or discussed in
any manner within Martin:
attaching a notation to each of said plurality of
triggers describing a before, during and after
operation related to said plurality of triggers on said
static object model.
In other words, the examiner has not asserted any correlation of
this feature to any portion of chapters 9 through 11 and pages
111 through 168 of those portions of Martin provided to us as
evidence of anticipation. On its face then, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of anticipation within 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as urged by appellants.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007