Appeal No. 1999-0843
Application No. 08/666,970
and, accordingly, the Examiner’s analysis, in our view, is
sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at
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)).
Our review of Appellant’s response in the Briefs reveals
that no arguments have been presented concerning the
Examiner’s interpretation of the admitted prior art
illustrated in Appellant’s Figure 1. To the contrary,
Appellant’s sole argument (Brief, pages 11 and 12) is to
repeat the language of claim 1 and make the general assertion
that the prior art does not disclose the claimed structure.
In our opinion, the Examiner’s prima facie case of
anticipation based on the admitted prior art remains
unrebutted by any persuasive arguments from Appellant.
Accordingly, since all of the claimed limitations are present
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007