Appeal 2007-0592
Application 10/263,001
1 micro-actuator devices (e.g., Kurano’s Background of the Invention). Based
2 on the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior
3 art and the claims, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, we
4 conclude that using Zirconia as the support frame (Appellant’s claimed first
5 material) in the Kurano device would have been obvious at the time of
6 Appellant’s invention.
7 We note that Appellant has labeled this section of the Specification as
8 “Background Information” rather than Prior Art. However, Appellant has
9 labeled as “Prior Art” the figures corresponding to this section of the
10 Specification. Therefore, until such time as the Appellant positively states
11 that it is not prior art, we treat as admitted prior art the entire contents of the
12 “Background Information” section of the Specification.
13 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection
14 pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
15 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
16 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
17 following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid
18 termination of the appeal (37 C.F.R. § 1.197(b)) as to the rejected claims:
19 (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
20 claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
21 or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
22 event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner …
23
24 (2) Request Rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
25 [37 C.F.R.] § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record …
26
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013