Appeal 2007-0487
Application 09/759,993
Appellants have not specifically argued that each of the applied
references do not have structure corresponding to the representative claim 22
requirements for a winding roll attached to a frame with the winding roll
including a longitudinal axis as well as a support roll rotatably attached to
the frame and located a fixed distance from the winding roll.
Thus, the principal issue raised in this appeal by the opposing
positions of the Examiner and Appellants is: Have Appellants identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection by counsel’s
assertions that the film removal structure of Apollonio or the tape removal
apparatus of Kuroda do not describe structure, including an arrangement of
the support roll and winding roll of each of these references on framework
such that the apparatus of each reference would be expected to have the
capability of functioning with the application of force in a manner as set
forth in the wherein clause of representative 22; that is, such that the applied
prior art apparatus would not have been capable of transferring (applying or
distributing) any tension applied to the adhesive film during the removal
thereof to the substrate via a support roll?
We answer this question in the negative and affirm the Examiner’s
separate anticipation rejections over Apollonio or Kuroda for the reasons
stated herein and in the answer.
The factual determination of anticipation requires the disclosure in a
single reference of every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly
or inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is also well-settled that an Examiner may shift the
burden to Appellants by showing how a prior art structure substantially
corresponds to a claimed structure such that it would be reasonable to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013