Appeal No. 1998-2083
Application No. 08/471,584
78 through 81 are not indefinite because the expressions “the
lowered position” and “the raised position” find clear
antecedent basis in lines 13-15 of claim 78 and refer to the
positions of the horizontal arms 233, 234. We agree.
Since the metes and bounds of claims 78 through 81 are
set forth with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 78 through 81
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness issues
Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our
conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 75
through 80 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007