Appeal No. 2001-0484 Page 8
Application No. 09/116,409
by Saito, it is possible to prevent a rise in temperature
within the main deck due to heat generation of the
illuminating lamp. Thus, there would be little, if any heat
transmitted from the lights 18 to the handrail to prevent
freezing of the handrail.
Since all the limitations of claim 1 are not disclosed in
Saito for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3 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). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007