Appeal No. 2002-2334
Application 09/097,235
With respect to representative claim 12, the Examiner
indicates (Answer, pages 2 and 3) how the various limitations are
read on the disclosure of Koolen. In particular, the Examiner
points to the illustrations in Koolen’s Figures 1 and 2 along
with the accompanying description beginning at column 3, line 13
through column 4, line 19.
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our opinion
that the stated position is sufficiently reasonable that we find
that the Examiner has at 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 Brief have not been considered [see 37
37 CFR § § 1.192(a)].
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner
has not shown how each of the claimed elements is present in the
disclosure of Koolen so as to establish a case of anticipation.
In particular, Appellants contend (Brief, page 8) that “ . . .
the Koolen device’s resistive and capacitive sensors cannot be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007