Appeal No. 1996-3619
Application No. 08/397,021
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Assoc, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 19, and 21, the
Examiner has indicated (Answer, pages 3 and 4) how the various
limitations are read on the disclosure of Kraus. In our view,
the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
find that the Examiner has as least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The burden is,
therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with evidence and/or
arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not
been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
In response, Appellant initially argues (Brief, pages 3
and 4), that the Examiner has misinterpreted the disclosure of
Kraus which, in Appellant’s view, is directed to phase control
and not frequency control of an oscillator, and particularly,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007