Appeal No. 2004-1376
Application No. 09/859,984
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
reference:3
Karl GB 2,168,458 Jun. 18, 1986
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Karl. (Final Rejection, pp. 3-9).
DISCUSSION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellant and
the Examiner, we find that the Examiner has failed to carry the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. Consequently, we
will not affirm the rejection of the claims under §§ 102 and 103. Rather than
reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and Appellant
concerning the above-noted rejections, we refer to the Answer and the Briefs.
Appellant’s invention relates to a crankshaft assembly of the type used in internal
3 The Examiner also cited Donahue, U.S. Patent 5,038,847 as evidence to support the
Official notice statement in the rejection.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007