Appeal No. 1999-1786
Application No. 08/821,738
lack a proper antecedent basis since claim 5, line 2
inferentially recites “a steering shaft” and “an outer end” by
reciting “a bore for receiving an outer end of a steering
shaft." In the examiner’s view, it is unclear whether or not
the steering shaft and outer end in claim 6 is the same or
different from the elements in claim 5. Appellant does not
disagree with this rejection (brief, page 6, last paragraph).
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Next we turn to the rejection of the claims on appeal
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); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The conclusion that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007