Appeal No. 2006-1820
Application No. 08/889,440
We do not understand how the examiner can contend that each of the primary references
discloses all claim limitations except for the animation limitation. Taking Baumann, for
example, with regard to instant claim 1 for example, based on the examiner’s description of
Baumann, where, exactly, does the examiner find “a kinetic condition setting unit,” as claimed?
Where, exactly, does the examiner find “a particle motion computing unit,” as claimed? Where,
exactly, in Baumann, does the examiner find the claimed functions of the kinetic condition
setting unit and the particle motion computing unit? The examiner does not say.
Moreover, why are the references to Kinema/SIM, Reeves and Cohen applied to claims,
such as claim 1, which do not recite anything about “animation” since these secondary
references are allegedly applied for the animation limitation?
Since no prima facie case of obviousness has been shown by the examiner, appellants
were not obliged to argue any of the specifics of the examiner’s rationale.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, and 22-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Ohira in view of either one of Kinema/SIM or Reeves of Cohen, the examiner asserts,
broadly, that Ohira discloses details of a molecular-dynamics simulation of sputtering (referring
to the abstract, page 2 and Figure 1) and that Ohira “discloses all claim limitations…except for a
teaching of animation of the simulation” (answer-page 72), relying, again, on either
Kinema/SIM, Reeves, or Cohen to supply the animation teaching.
However, once again, the examiner offers no cogent rationale as to how the primary
reference, to Ohira, is specifically applied against the claims. Taking instant claim 1, again as an
example, where, exactly, in Ohira, , does the examiner find “a kinetic condition setting unit,” as
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007