Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454
separated from the receiving device.” (Answer at 4.) The
examiner further contends: “Even if the applicant were [sic] not
persuaded that Ramm et al inherently disclose the work piece
support being separable, it could at least be said that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make
them separable for the advantage of operability and
maintainability.” (Id. at 9.) As to the “laterally-extending
closeable opening” limitation recited in appealed claim 1 and
the appellants’ arguments based thereon, the examiner states
that Ramm’s annulus 50 is such an opening and that the “issue
[raised by the appellants with respect to the recited opening]
is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.” (Id. at 4 and
9.) In what appears to be an alternative theory, the examiner
contends (id. at 8-9):
Ramm et al disclose that the work piece support
Fig 3-35 has a guide pin like structure in a hole.
Work piece support is not shown one piece with
receiving part 37. Also, if taken out, it would be
more convenient to use the opening where targets are
installed (Fig 4-49) during processing, in a manner as
disclosed in Fig 2 of applicant’s specification.
We hold that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of unpatentability against the appealed claims. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007