Appeal No. 2006-0513
Application No. 09/741,684
With respect to independent claim 7, the Examiner indicates
(Answer, pages 3 and 4) how the various limitations are read on
the disclosure of Albrecht. In particular, the Examiner directs
attention to the illustrations in Albrecht’s Figures 3 and 12A-
12C, as well as the accompanying descriptions at column 10, lines
35-53, and column 11, lines 16-25 of Albrecht.
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our opinion
that the stated position is sufficiently reasonable that we find
that the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting
a prima facie case of anticipation. The burden is, therefore,
upon Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or argument
which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
Appellants’ arguments in response to the rejection of
independent claim 7 assert that the Examiner has not shown how
each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of
Albrecht so as to establish a case of anticipation. Appellants’
primary point of contention (Brief, pages 4 and 5; Reply Brief,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007