Appeal No. 2006-2064
Application 09/771,761
With respect to independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 26, the Examiner
indicates (Answer, pages 9-14) how the various limitations are read on the
disclosure of Curtis. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to the
illustrations in Figures 3-6 of Curtis as well as the disclosure at various
portions of columns 4, 9, and 11-13 of Curtis.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
find that the Examiner has as 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 arguments 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 assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Curtis
so as to establish a case of anticipation. In particular, Appellants’ arguments
(Brief, pages 6 and 7; Reply Brief, pages 6-8) focus on the contention that,
in contrast to the claimed invention, Curtis does not provide for the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007