Appeal No. 2000-1232
Application 09/114,954
In accordance with the arguments between pages 9 and 10 of the
brief, while appellants recognize that Alt discloses attaching a
shock bumper 124 to a flexible load arm, they assert that the
claimed invention requires a disc snubber over a portion of a
rigid actuator arm. Again, it is noted that neither of these
features are recited in independent claim 24 on appeal.
On balance, therefore, we consider the arguments presented
by the examiner to substantiate the rejection beginning at page 3
of the answer to be well-taken. The examiner has showed
equivalent structural means and function in Alt to correspond to
the limit means set forth in broad form in independent claim 24
on appeal. Thus, the examiner has set forth a prima facie case
of anticipation that has not been successfully rebutted by
appellants' arguments in the brief and in the absence of a filing
of a reply brief to the contrary. Therefore, the rejection of
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007