Appeal No. 2002-0540 Page 6
Application No. 09/589,434
F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) (citing Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d
212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (1939)).
Here, the examiner equates the claimed "compact flash expansion slot" to
"Feightner['s] . . . slots (34, fig. 2). . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) He alleges that these
slots 34 are "inherently capable of receiving compact flash expansion cards. . . ." (Id.
(emphasis added).) For its part, the reference describes these slots as "main memory
slots 34," col. 3, l. 18, of a "Baby-AT motherboard 14. . . ." Id. at ll. 15. We find no
evidence that an expansion card that complies with the industry standard CF+ types I or
II slot defined by the compact flash CF+ specification maintained by the Compact Flash
Association of Palo Alto, California, however, is necessarily inserted in any of
Feightner's main memory slots 34. To the contrary, we agree with the appellants that
"[t]he Feightner reference does not . . . mention compact flash [n]or suggest the
desirability of having an expansion slot which is compliant with the CF+ specification for
compact flash memory." (Appeal Br. at 6.) Therefore, we reverse the anticipation
rejection of claim 1, of claim 18, and of claims 19 and 22, which depend from claim 18.
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007