Appeal No. 2003-1410
Application 09/272,056
OPINION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 102. The examiner has not established a prima facie
case of anticipation of each of the respective independent
claims 1, 15, 26 and 38 on appeal.
The examiner’s attempts to show teachings in Sixtus
that correlate to the subject matter of independent claim 1 at
page 4 of the Answer and independent claim 15 at pages 5 and 6 of
the Answer, as well as the examiner’s reliance upon Sixtus to
reach the identified dependent claims, relies only upon the
abstract and portions of columns 1 through 3 of this reference.
Method independent claim 1 does in fact correspond to the subject
matter of medium independent claim 26, and appellant agrees to
this in the principal Brief on appeal. On the other hand, the
examiner’s view that claim 38 corresponds to independent claim 1
at page 8 of the Answer is clearly misplaced.
Additionally, the Answer contains substantially one
half page of responsive arguments at page 9 of the Answer to
respond to appellant’s significant arguments in the Brief. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007