Appeal No. 2004-0755
Application No. 09/110,109
The examiner states that claims 9 and 14 “are rejected based
on the same reasoning as claims 1-8" (final rejection mailed
September 11, 2001, paper no. 21, page 17). In the rejection of
claims 1-8, the examiner merely states that the subject matter is
disclosed by Deinhart and cites all of Deinhart except the field
of the invention. See id. at pages 10-17.
The examiner has not pointed out where the limitations in
claims 9 and 14 are disclosed, either expressly or inherently, by
Deinhart. See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A.,
Inc., 868 F.2d at 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d at 1965. Hence, the examiner
has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation of the systems claimed in those claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 9 and its
dependent claims 11-13, and claim 14 and its dependent
claims 16-21.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007