Appeal No. 2000-1474 Page 12
Application No. 08/962,902
functional language set forth in claim 1. In that regard, we 2
consider the platform of Mueller to be a wide upper platform
since it is capable of carrying substantially the entirety of
both feet of a standing rider in a variety of positions and
locations (e.g., the left foot of the standing rider could be
placed in front of the right foot of the rider and vice
versa). We also consider each of the pair of tubular members
to include a lower portion having a generally smooth and
snag-free face extending opposite from the platform capable of
omni-directional sliding engagement with the ground and
ground-supported objects.
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of anticipation resides with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
2A prior art reference need not expressly disclose each
claimed element in order to anticipate the claimed invention.
See Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. Corp., 777 F.2d 687,
689, 227 USPQ 845, 846-847 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Rather, if a
claimed element (or elements) is inherent in a prior art
reference, then that element (or elements) is disclosed for
purposes of finding anticipation. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d at 631-33, 2 USPQ2d at 1052-54.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007