Appeal No. 2003-1851
Application No. 09/556,157
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the invention
claimed in the appellant’s claim 1 and the claims which depend
therefrom.
Claim 11
The appellant’s claim 11 requires the step of expanding a
rest member to an inclined elevation.
The examiner argues that Garman’s “expandable member clearly
assumes various degrees of inclination as it is elevated”
(answer, page 4). As discussed above regarding claim 1, however,
Garman’s cushion panel 61, which the examiner relies upon as
corresponding to the appellant’s expandable member, is not
expandable. Hence, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of anticipation of the invention claimed in the
appellant’s claim 11 and the claims which depend therefrom.
Claim 16
The appellant’s claim 16 requires a pivotal platform
configured to a body part.
The examiner argues that because the appellant’s claim 16
claims an apparatus for supporting a body part and does not
specify the body part, the fact that Garman’s body part rest
member is completely flat is irrelevant (answer, page 6). The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007