Appeal No. 2001-0483 Page 9
Application No. 08/996,842
readable on the mechanism and arrangement of Figure 5 of
Hoffmann. 5
Since all the limitations of claims 12 and 13 are not
disclosed in Hoffmann for the reasons set forth above, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hoffmann is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harz in view
of Fisher.
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
5This decision is consistent with the position reached
with respect to then pending claims 12 and 13 in the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences decision of May 29, 1996 in
the parent application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007