Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362
(1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133
USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
Among other limitations, claim 14 requires that there be
“a transverse partition formed by directly affixing said
barrier leg
cuffs together without an intermediate member therebetween”
(emphasis added). Even assuming, arguendo, that one of the
edges of “hole sheet 5" shown in Figure 2 constitutes the
required transverse partition, the limitation quoted above
clearly is not met. In the Kao item, the barrier leg cuffs
(4) simply are not “directly affixed” to one another, and
therefore the reference fails to anticipate the subject matter
recited in claim 14. The rejection under Section 102
therefore must fail. Since claim 20 depends from claim 14, it
follows that the rejection of it under this ground also cannot
be sustained.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007