Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
structure disclosed by Arya, we affirm the rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 20-23 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Arya does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 20-23. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants argue at
page 8 of the brief, that "Arya et al. says nothing about the
amount of stiction." We find that Appellants' argument does not
overcome the Examiner's prima facie showing of anticipation as
discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claim 24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Arya does fully meet the invention as
recited in claim 24. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 24, Appellants argue at pages
8-9 of the brief, that "Arya et al. says nothing about the amount
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007