Ex Parte Suzuki et al - Page 13

                Appeal No. 2007-0464                                                                                                   
                Application 09/964,874                                                                                                 
                at startup and subsequent resetting of the tracking offset at a later time.  It was incumbent upon                     
                the applicant to rebut the prima facie case.                                                                           
                        All the applicant has done, however, is to argue that the examiner did not specifically                        
                explain where the disclosure for setting and resetting an offset value exists in Otsuka.  According                    
                to the applicant, the examiner merely cited to Paragraphs 23-33 of Otsuka-English and that that                        
                was not specific enough.  In the Examiner’s Answer, the citation of support was narrowed to                            
                Paragraphs 23-27 of Otsuka-English and the applicant in the reply brief still regards that as not                      
                specific enough.  The applicant does not submit that Otsuka does not disclose what the examiner                        
                found it discloses and has not discussed the portions of the reference cited by the examiner as                        
                disclosing the feature.  The sole argument put forth is that the examiner provided no explanation                      
                as to why the cited portions of the reference meet the claim features at issue.                                        
                        While an examiner must explain the rejection and offer up a rationale in support of the                        
                rejection, the explanation does not have to be in a particular form and style that suits the                           
                applicant’s preference, and the citation of support to a reference need not have the same accuracy                     
                and precision as that possessed by a cartographer.  Paragraphs 23-25, as reproduced in Fact                            
                Findings 19 and 20, reasonably apprise the applicant of the examiner’s position, and Paragraphs                        
                23-27 together covering only thirty-one lines of text are not so voluminous as to constitute                           
                excessively burdensome material for the applicant to review.  The relevance of Paragraphs 23-25                        
                is self-evident even upon only a cursory review of the same.                                                           
                        The applicant cites a Board decision in Appeal No. 2003-0121 in which the panel                                
                determined that the examiner did not adequately indicate how the asserted prior art rendered the                       
                rejected claims unpatentable.  The adequacy of the explanation has to be determined on a case by                       
                case basis.  In this case, the explanation given by the examiner was sufficient.  There is much in                     


Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013