Appeal No. 2000-0949
Application No. 08/721,505
Roberston, 169 F.3d at 745, 49 USPQ2d at 1950-51 citing Continental Can, 948 F.2d
at 1269, 20 USPQ2d at 1749. Therefore, the examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case of anticipation and we will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 5 and 14.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner additionally applies Rostoker in combination with Holdgrafer.
Rostoker is relied upon by the examiner to teach and suggest the modification of the
predetermined distance D from the terminal edge of the lead finger as taught in Holdgrafer
to be a distance in between the upper limit D taught by Holdgrafer and the lower limit or
safety zone and taught by Rostoker. The examiner does not rely upon the teaching of
Rostoker to teach or suggest the determination of the longitudinal axis, nor has the
examiner maintained that this determination would have been obvious in view of either
teaching. Since Rostoker does not remedy the deficiency as discussed in the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 6-8, 15 and
20-26. Independent claims 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26 contain the same limitation that the
longitudinal axis is determined.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007