Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
the other does not have cross section dimensions which meet the
stiffness criteria recited in claim 1 (See specification at page
6 and pages 8-9). The examiner has, as with the 102(b) rejection
based on Wirth, relied on inherency without providing any
technical reasoning why (1) the stiffness criteria of claim 1
necessarily flows from the teachings of Mayerjak or (2) the
appellant’s reasoning set out in the specification as it relates
to Mayerjak is incorrect. As we are of the opinion that
appellant’s reasoning appears to be correct and the examiner has
not provided reasoning as to why it is not, we conclude that the
examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing
anticipation based on inherency. Therefore, we will not sustain
this rejection as it is directed to claim 1 or claims 7-12 and
14-17 dependent therefrom.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007