Appeal No. 2006-2108
Application No. 10/392,418
examiner’s rationale, therefore, requires that both ends be
considered to be adjacent to the main body. That interpretation
of “adjacent” does not appear to be reasonable, and the examiner
has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that one of
ordinary skill in the art, when giving “adjacent” its broadest
reasonable interpretation in view of the appellants’
specification, would have interpreted the term that broadly.
Hence, the examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the inventions
claimed in the appellants’ claims 4 and 13. We therefore reverse
the rejection of claim 4 and its dependent claims 5 and 6, and
claim 13 and its dependent claim 14.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-6, 9-14 and 24-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Oetiker is affirmed as to claims 1-3,
9-12 and 24-27, and reversed as to claims 4-6, 13 and 14.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007