Appeal No. 2003-1702 Page 6
Application No. 08/749,840
reservoir as implied in Paper No. 16 rather than connected for
pressurizing the working connections of the deactivated circuit,
we can not agree. In such a no pressure load operation or set up
for the deactivated circuit as may be conveyed in Bohner (column
5, lines 35-43), a source of pressure is not described as being
connected to the working connections of the deactivated circuit,
as required by appellants’ claim 9.
Consequently, the examiner has not discharged the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation as to
any of the claims on appeal. It follows that, on this record, we
will not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007