Appeal No. 2002-0074 Page 16
Application No. 08/800,758
Claim 14
With respect to independent claim 14, the appellants argue (brief, pp. 7-8) that
the limitation "a moving structure capable of moving horizontally in the longitudinal
direction of said two vertical installation structures" is not met by Evans. The two
vertical installation structures are the two vertical installation structures arranged
parallel to each other on opposite sides of an alley with each extending in a longitudinal
direction as previously recited in claim 14. Claim 14 later recites that the moving
structure is located in the alley. The examiner has not pointed out how these limitations
are met by Evans or why these limitations would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of Evans.
Thus, we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 since the evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness4 with respect to claim 14.
Claim 15
With respect to independent claim 15, the appellants argue (brief, p. 8) that the
limitation "each of said stages is level with a corresponding one of said placing stages
of said vertical installation structure" is not met by Evans. We do not agree for the
4 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).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007