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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007