Appeal No. 2002-1320
Application 09/027,776
OPINION1
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and
the Examiner, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’ position in that the
Examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation, see Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and obviousness. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejections. We will limit our
discussion to the independent claims, i.e., claim 1, 18 and 21.
Rejections under 102(b)
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, all of
the elements of the claim must be found in one reference. Scripps, 927 F.2d, 1576, 18
USPQ2d, 1010.
Claim 21 requires the emergency support body to have a ring torus having axial
end sections comprising radially outwardly arched sections and an intermediate
1 In rendering this decision, we have considered Appellants arguments presented in the Brief, filed
Aug. 6, 2001, and Reply Brief , filed Nov. 26, 2001.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007