Appeal 2007-0838
Application 09/851,242
potting step to form a unitized structure, and a step corresponding to the
representative claim 1 placing of the structure into a shell. See the Brief and
the Reply Brief3 in their entirety.4 Rather, Appellants contend that:
The Examiner has failed to show that the combined
teachings of the prior art references cited against the instant
Application discloses all of the required features of the instant
invention, i.e.[,] two potting steps. [The] Examiner's argument
is based on the notion that Mancusi discloses two potting steps.
However, as explained throughout the prosecution of the instant
Application, the Applicant has shown that Mancusi does not
teach two potting step[s]. (See Applicant's Reply Brief to
Examiner's Supplemental answer’, Dated May 18, 2005, Page
5, Line 11 to Page 10, line 2).
Therefore, the Examiner has failed to show that the
combined teachings of the prior art references cited against
[the] instant Application discloses all of [the, sic] required
features of the instant invention, i.e.[,] two potting steps.
Additionally, it is a burden upon the Examiner to show a
suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of the prior art
references cited against the instant Application to achieve the
required features of the instant invention, i.e.[,] two potting
steps. The Examiner, however, fails to show any suggestion or
motivation to modify the teachings of the prior art references
cited against the instant Application to achieve the required
features of the instant invention, i.e.[,] two potting steps.
(Br. 20-21).
3 Our references to the Reply Brief herein are to the Reply Brief filed May
15, 2006 unless otherwise specifically indicated.
4 Arguments not made in the Briefs are considered to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2007).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013