Ex Parte Webster et al - Page 4

              Appeal No. 2006-0965                                                                                      
              Application No. 10/827,051                                                                                

              35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vreeland.  We turn first to independent                        
              claim 24.  We note by way of background that the burden of establishing a prima                           
              facie case of anticipation resides with the United States Patent and Trademark                            
              Office (USPTO).  See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788                               
              (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                                                         
              Appellants assert (Brief p. 3) that “the Examiner’s attempt to analogize                                  
              Vreeland’s workpiece to a component of claim 24’s position maintainer is                                  
              untenable, as the position maintainer is expressly distinguished from a workpiece                         
              in claim 24’s preamble.”  It is asserted (Brief p. 4) that  the problem with the                          
              examiner's analogizing claim 24's stoppers to Vreeland's apertures 26, 27, and 28 is                      
              that claim 24 requires the stoppers to be interposed between the surface and the                          
              biasing device.  Appellants argue (id.) that the apertures 26-28 cannot be                                
              interpreted as being interposed between the surface of base 10 and glass tube 31                          
              (or elements 21, 18, and 23).  It is further argued (Brief p. 4) that the examiner's                      
              citation of Vreeland's element 25 as an aperture represents a mis-comparison                              
              because Vreeland's element 25 is a base plate rather than an aperture.  Appellants                        
              also take issue with the examiner's contention that base plate 25 is a plurality of                       
              stoppers, and asserts that the examiner's position is contrary to Vreeland's                              
              disclosure of a single base plate.  Appellants argue that as a result of these                            
              differences, Vreeland cannot be understood to anticipate claim 24.                                        
                     The examiner's position (Answer p. 3) is that the stoppers are elements 26,                        
              27, and 28 of Vreeland, and that portions of the block containing apertures are                           
              stoppers; i.e., each 1/3 of the block containing a single aperture is a stopper.  The                     
              examiner adds (Answer pp. 5 and 6) that due to the selective positioning of the                           
              block as it is slid along the base, the 1/3 of the block is switchably exclusively                        
              interposed between the base and the biasing means.                                                        

                                                           4                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013