Appeal No. 2003-1702 Page 4
Application No. 08/749,840
We refer to the briefs and to the answer for an exposition
of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and the
examiner concerning the issues before us in this appeal.
OPINION
We have reviewed the record, including all of the arguments
advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support of
their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude
that the examiner’s rejection is not well founded. Accordingly,
we reverse the aforementioned rejection.
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim
limitations are described in a single reference. See In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
All of the claims on appeal require a change-over valve
that, in a first position, activates a first (hydraulic) circuit
having a first control unit and a first steering motor connected
with the control unit via working connections while deactivating
a second circuit. Also, the same change-over valve is required
by the claims on appeal to activate a second such circuit when in
a second position while deactivating the first circuit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007