Appeal No. 2001-1926
Application 08/777,722
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse, since we have concluded that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of anticipation within
35 U.S.C. § 102.
This lack of a prima facie case is initially present in the
manner in which the rejection has been set forth in the answer.
The examiner has not correlated specific teachings, suggestions,
and showings for the various figures to each recited limitation
of independent claims 1 and 12 on appeal to justify a valid
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Instead, it appears that this
burden has been left to us to do. The examiner has selectively
quoted in the answer substantial portions of most of the 20
columns of Bales in addition to reproducing therein various
figures from this reference. The examiner has not identified by
column and line number most portions of Bales quoted in the
1(...continued)
page 2 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007