Appeal 2007-0030
Application 10/359,557
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claims
1 and 4 based on the teachings of Murata, the Examiner indicates (Final
Office action 4-5) how the various limitations are read on the disclosure of
Murata. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to the portions of the
disclosure at columns 7-9 of Murata as well as the illustration in Murata’s
Figure 8.
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 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
Appellants’ response asserts that the Examiner has not shown how
each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Murata so as to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellants’ arguments focus on
the contention that, in contrast to the claimed invention, Murata has no
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013