Appeal No. 2005-0646 Page 7
Application No. 10/278,184
claimed heater even though the Lee resistor and the disclosed
heater appear to be the same in basic structure. Appellant’s
arguments are insufficient to carry the burden of demonstrating
that the prima facie case of anticipation established by the
examiner is erroneous.
With respect to separately argued claim 26, the examiner
has indicated how he reads the claimed invention on Lee [answer,
page 4]. Appellants broadly argue that the structure of claim 26
is not possible from Lee [brief, page 6]. The examiner responds
by explaining how the Lee resistor meets the claimed invention.
The examiner also notes that appellants have failed to address
the examiner’s position set forth in the rejection [answer, page
9].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 26.
The examiner has explained how dependent claim 26 is fully met by
the disclosure of Lee. The examiner’s explanation is sufficient
to have established a prima facie case of anticipation. We agree
with the examiner that appellants have failed to rebut the
examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation. There are no
arguments directed to the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejection of claim 26.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007