Specifically, Jones discloses “x,y,z.” However, Jones is completely silent in regards to limitation D.” Further, there is no reason why Jones would have “limitation D” because Jones (insert reasoning why Jones wouldn’t have it, if applicable.” Therefore, Jones cannot anticipate “limitation D” as currently recited in amended independent claim 1.
If an Examiner’s interpretation is incorrect, I like to argue using the following as a guideline.
On page X of the office Action dated January 1, 2013, the Examiner states that Jones (the cited art reference) discloses each and every claimed limitation in independent claim 1.
To expedite prosecution, and without discussing the merits of the subject matter of Jones corresponding to the claimed limitations of independent claim (which is not admitted or suggested that Jones anticipates any of the claimed limitations of independent claim 1), Applicant submits that Jones is not proper cited art under 35 USC 102.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully request Jones is not proper cited art, and withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
In 35 USC 102 rejections, a single cited art reference must disclose each and every claimed limitation.