Appeal No. 2000-1284
Application No. 08/576,730
With respect to separately argued independent claim 12,
appellant argues that the examiner has not identified how each of
the steps recited therein is taught or suggested by McInerney.
Specifically, appellant argues that the examiner has relied on
the rejection with respect to claim 1, but claim 12 recites steps
that were not considered in the rejection of claim 1 [brief,
page 8].
Although the examiner has provided what he calls a
mapping of the steps of claim 12 onto the disclosure of
McInerney, we are unable to see how each of the steps of claim 12
is met by the portions of McInerney relied on by the examiner.
The examiner has, therefore, failed to establish a prima facie
case of the obviousness of claim 12. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
In summary, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7 and
9-12 based on McInerney taken alone is sustained with respect
claims 1-3, 7 and 9-11, but is not sustained with respect to
claim 12. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1-3, 7 and 9-12 is affirmed-in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007