Appeal No. 2002-1645 Page 13
Application No. 09/281,553
side bars 12 and 14 appear to be sufficiently spaced apart to permit at least partial
access into the interior space of the walker by the smallest width wheelchair).
At this point, the burden has shifted to the appellant to show that the prior art
structure of Engelhart does not inherently possess the functionally/capability defined
limitations of the claimed apparatus. The appellant has failed to do so.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Engelhart is affirmed.
Claim 13
The appellant has grouped claims 12 and 13 as standing or falling together.3
Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claim 13 falls with claim 12. Thus, it
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Engelhart is also affirmed.
Claims 14 and 15
Claim 14 reads as follows:
3 See page 2 of the appellant's brief.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007