Appeal No. 2002-1505
Application No. 09/004,254
claimed confirmation step as recited in each of the independent claims. (See brief at
pages 4-5.) In our view, we agree that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case of anticipation. The examiner maintains that Fukui discloses that the “differences
between the determined and reference interconnections are confirmed and loaded into
the RAM . . . (column 18, lines 51-56).” We do not find that this specific portion teaches
the confirmation of the configuration as maintained by the examiner and the examiner
has not identified any other teaching in Fukui to teach this limitation. Since the
examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and their
respective dependent claims.
Alternatively, the examiner maintains that with respect to claims 8 and 10 “that
confirming the difference step is performed by an operator (column 14, lines 48-52).”
Appellants argue that the referenced portion of Fukui simply indicates that when a
function is added to a copier, an operator accesses an added function via the display
panel. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellants, and we do not find that the
examiner has shown where Fukui teaches this limitation. Since the examiner has not
met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation, we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 10 and their dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007