Appeal 2007-0683
Application 10/121,772
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims
1, 12, and 19 based on the teachings of Nakanishi, the Examiner indicates
(Answer 3-4) how the various limitations are read on the disclosure of
Nakanishi. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to the illustrations in
Nakanishi’s Figures 4-7, 12A, and 12B, as well as the description beginning
at column 7, line 26 of Nakanaishi.
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’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of
Nakanishi so as to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellants’
arguments (Br. 12-16; Reply Br. 8-12) focus on the contention that, in
contrast to the claimed invention, Nakanishi does not disclose first and
second flexure arm assemblies and first and second actuator arm assemblies
(except for the mounting portions) that are “substantially identical.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013