Appeal 2007-0494
Application 10/447,446
Appellants argue that Schneider fails to disclose a purge gas outlet
having “inner and outer walls outward of the vacuum valve opening which
form the essentially continuous purge gas outlet extending around the
outside of the vacuum valve opening, as recited in [A]ppellants’ claim 1”
(Br. 11-12).
The Examiner has neither responded to Appellants’ argument nor has
the Examiner indicated in his rejection where “an essentially continuous
purge gas outlet” is disclosed in Schneider. The Examiner initially bears the
burden of establishing a prima facie case. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner has not met
this burden with regard to the Schneider rejection.
Accordingly we reverse the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-2 and 12
over Schneider.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION OVER GOCHBERG
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s double patenting rejection
of claims 1-3, 9, and 12 over Gochberg (Br. 5). Rather, Appellants indicate
that a terminal disclaimer will be submitted at the time the claims are
indicated allowable (Br. 5). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s double patenting rejection of claims 1-3, 9, and 12 over
Gochberg.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 9, and 12 under § 102(b) over
Senba is AFFIRMED.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013