Appeal No. 2004-0681
Application No. 09/899,743
determine that the examiner’s inherency position is reasonably
supported by the factual and technical basis advanced in the
answer (as well as in the final Office action).
For these reasons, it is our ultimate determination that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of unpatentability
which the appellants have failed to successfully rebut with
argument and/or evidence of patentability. We shall sustain,
therefore, the examiner’s section 102 rejection of claims 6 and 7
as being anticipated by Dixit.2 See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
2 In any further prosecution that may occur, the examiner
and the appellants should explore the alternative issue of
whether the here claimed subject matter would have been obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the teachings
of Dixit.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007