Appeal No. 95-3658
Application 07/777,877
Claims 11, 12, and 17
Claim 11 is more detailed than claim 1 and recites specific elements and their relationship to one
another. The examiner states that "appellant has not stated which elements of the claim are not clearly
taught by the combination of Harns and Eaton" (Examiner's Answer, page 8) and "asserts that Harns and
Eaton teach the claimed elements (as described above in paragraph 9) and that the timing relationships
claimed are equivalent to that disclosed in Harns" (Examiner's Answer, page 8). Claim 11 is more detailed
than claim 1 and the correspondence of elements and relationships to Harns is not clear to us as it was with
claim 1. It is the examiner's responsibility to establish a prima facie case that the claimed subject matter
is unpatentable and we conclude this has not been done with respect to claim 11. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 11, 12, and 17 is reversed.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007