Appeal No. 1999-1631
Application 08/733,586
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035 (Fed. Cir.
1997) ("[W]e expect that the Board's anticipation analysis be
conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with specific
fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory
explanations for such findings [footnote omitted]."). Compare
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed.
Cir. 1998), which explains that "[o]n appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a [35 U.S.C. § 103] rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness."
E. The § 112, ¶ 1 rejection of claim 6
Dependent claim 6, which stands rejected under § 112, ¶
1, reads as follows:
6. The SRAM device of claim 5, wherein a
difference between the mean of said first and third
x co-ordinates and the mean of said second and
fourth x co-ordinates is in the range of 0.5 microns
to one half of a width of said SRAM cell.
The examiner's contention that this claim lacks written
description support in the specification is incorrect; this
claim language has clear written description support in the
following sentence, which bridges pages 6 and 7 of the
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007