Appeal No. 1999-0865
Application No. 08/468,573
claim. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1,
3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to independent claim 57, the representative
claim for Appellants’ first suggested grouping, the Examiner
indicates (Answer, page 5) how the various limitations are read
on the disclosure of Fessenden. In particular, the Examiner
points to the illustrations in Fessenden’s Figures 1-6 and 9 and
the accompanying description at pages 1-3 of Fessenden. In our
view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
find that the Examiner has as least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The burden is,
therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or
arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been
considered (see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)).
Appellants’ arguments in response (Brief, pages 4 and 5;
Reply Brief, page 2) focus on the Examiner’s alleged
misinterpretation of the Fessenden reference which, in
Appellants’ view, has no disclosure of the connection of a first
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007