Appeal No. 2005-0970 Page 4
Application No. 09/918,760
final destination 32, the desired park position for the
next print.
The examiner has not interpreted the means clauses in the
appellants’ claims 1-8 in light of the corresponding structure
described in the appellants’ specification, and equivalents
thereof, and explained how Narita or Nureki discloses such
structure or equivalents. The examiner, therefore, has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation of the apparatus claimed in the appellants’
claims 1-8. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of those
claims.1
Claims 9-15
The appellants state that claims 9-15 stand or fall together
(brief, page 3). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim
in this group, i.e., claim 9. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565,
1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Rejection over Narita
Narita discloses an apparatus comprising a step motor (1A),
a drive train driven by the step motor (col. 3, lines 37-40), a
card medium transport mechanism connected to the drive train and
driven by the step motor (col. 4, lines 11-28), and an
1
1 The examiner does not rely upon Barker for any disclosure
that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Nureki as to
claim 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007