Appeal No. 2002-1917
Application 09/418,509
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated in substantial detail how he
has read the invention of each of claims 1-37 on the disclosure
of Scroggie [answer, pages 5-16]. Appellants have nominally
argued this rejection in eighteen different claim groupings.
Each of the nominal groups indicated by appellants is argued by
simply broadly asserting that the claims of each group recite
limitations that are not disclosed by Scroggie [brief, pages 6-
10]. These assertions by appellants are not accompanied by any
analysis nor do they address the specific portions of Scroggie
identified by the examiner as disclosing the specific features of
the claims on appeal. The examiner responds to each of
appellants’ groups of claims by again specifically reading the
claimed invention on the disclosure of Scroggie [answer, pages
16-39].
Since appellants’ brief offers no substantive response to
the examiner’s rejection except to broadly disagree with it, we
will consider appellants’ position to be that the examiner’s
rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation.
As noted above, however, the examiner’s rejection goes into
substantial detail as to how the claimed invention is fully met
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007