Appeal No. 1999-1758
Application No. 08/787,971
1, the examiner did not meet his initial burden of presenting
evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the
art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the
invention described in the claims. Upon reviewing the Office
actions subsequent to the amendment of Paper No. 7 (the final
rejection, Paper No. 11 and the examiner’s answer, Paper No.
16), we do not agree with appellant’s assertion of
impropriety. The examiner provided evidence and reasoning in
Paper No. 11, pages 2 and 4, and expanded the explanation of
the evidence and reasoning in the examiner’s answer on page 6.
The evidence and reasoning provided by the examiner and not
disputed by appellant included the fact that the terms “two
adjacent surfaces” and “two opposing surfaces” are not defined
in the specification and that the angular clips (24) are shown
in the drawings as only engaging a vertical edge of the flange
(30) and not a surface of the flange. Even though the
examiner may not have articulated his position clearly enough
for appellant to understand, upon review of Papers No. 11 and
16, we note that the examiner did provide evidence and
reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not
recognize in the originally filed disclosure a description of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007