Appeal No. 2004-1045
Application 09/282,129
for other purposes such as changing the size of the window) so as
to produce the appellants’ swinging. Nor has the examiner
pointed out, in support of the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e), where Horvitz discloses such swinging.
For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation of the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 10-12, 15-17, 25-29, 35-39
and 44-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Horvitz is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO:psb
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007