Appeal No. 1999-0285 Page 8
Application No. 08/697,573
"shutting down the lifter" when the provided limit switch
(i.e., the lift arm limit switch or the stabilizing arm limit
switch) detects its respective arm (i.e., the lift arm or the
stabilizing arm).
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 41 to 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 25 to 30, 32
and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims 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 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007