Appeal No. 1999-0368
Application 08/636,033
[Answer, pages 4-6; emphasis in original.]
Opinion
While the examiner rejects the appealed claim under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), it is clear from the above quoted portion of
the answer that the examiner has encountered substantial
difficulty in understanding the meaning and scope of that part
of the appealed claim calling for the knuckle to function like
an existing AAR Standard knuckle. For reasons stated infra in
our new rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we also have
been troubled by the claim language of this portion of the
claim. Nevertheless, in this instance, we feel we understand
the appealed claim sufficiently to decide the appealed § 102
rejection on the merits.
At the outset, we observe that the initial burden of
establishing a basis for denying patentability to a claimed
invention rests upon the examiner. If that burden is met, the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to
appellants. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In the present instance, the appealed claim calls for a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007