Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
associated connecting circuit structure disclosed therein are of
the equivalent structure and arranged in an equivalent manner to
that described in Appellants’ disclosure. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 36, as well as
claim 39 dependent thereon, based on the Buchele reference, is
reversed.
We would point out that, although our reversal of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 36 and 39 is based on a lack of
evidence on the record before us, this is not to be taken as an
indication that no evidence exists to support the Examiner’s
position. Further, although we have found that Buchele does not
disclose an equivalent structure under 35 U.S.C. § 102, MPEP
§ 2183 also notes that the Examiner should consider whether the
prior art supports a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have
made no findings as to whether the claimed coupling means would
have been obvious to the artisan within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We leave it to the Examiner to determine in the first
instance whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is appropriate
based on Buchele or any other prior art.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
70, 71, and 75 based on the Carroll reference, and the 35 U.S.C.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007