Appeal No. 2004-2256
Application 10/042,738
It is of course the examiner’s initial burden to
establish a prima facie case of unpatentability on any grounds
including anticipation. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In light of his
previously mentioned analytical deficiencies, the examiner has
failed to carry this burden in the § 102 rejection before us.
Stated differently, the record of this appeal provides no basis
for finding that Hopper’s barb structure and the function
performed thereby are the same as or equivalent to the structure
and function defined by independent claims 1 and 7. This
deficiency is particularly evident with respect to the require-
ment in these claims that the first connector means perform the
function of “releasably interconnecting said first and second
frame halves” (emphasis added). This is because a study of
Hopper’s disclosure, particularly figures 8 and 10, reveals that
patentee’s distal barb (which the examiner equates to the here
claimed first connector means) would not be capable of performing
the “releasably” interconnecting function required by these
claims. That is, Hopper’s frame construction is such that there
appears to be no way to release or disengage his distal barbs
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007