Appeal 2007-0487
Application 09/759,993
representative claim 22 is drawn to a subassembly of a frame and associated
rolls without requiring a combination thereof with mounting elements for
arranging the frame and rolls relative to a substrate.
In other words, much of Appellants’ argument with respect to both of
the applied references as far as representative claim 22 is concerned seems
to be directed at a supposed distinction between how the frame and
associated rolls would ultimately be arranged for use relative to a substrate
from which a film is to be removed rather than spelling out how the claimed
subassembly of a frame and spaced rolls are patentably distinguishable over
the applied references. Accordingly, these arguments are not accorded any
persuasive weight.
In light of the above, we determine that the Examiner has presented a
prima facie case of anticipation based on the described subject matter of
either Apollonio or Kuroda that has not been rebutted by Appellants. Hence,
we affirm both of the Examiner’s anticipation rejections, on this record.
Concerning the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejections of claims
24 and 23 over Apollonio and Apollonio in view of Stadtmueller,
respectively, Appellants base their arguments for patentability of these
dependent claims on the asserted lack of a teaching or suggestion of the
apparatus features of claim 22, from which claims 23 and 24 depend (Br. 12
and 13: Reply Br. 8 and 9). Hence, for the reasons stated above and in the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, we shall also affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 8-13, 17, 21, 22
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Apollonio (French
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013