Appeal No. 2005-0981
Application No. 09/848,665 Page 4
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejection that is
before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants’ viewpoint in that the examiner has failed to carry
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223
USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection.
There are two independent claims among the rejected claims
on appeal. Rejected independent claim 33 requires stationary
troughs located for receiving water from drop tube assemblies and
positioned partially above the ground. The troughs include a
wall which is adapted to engage a surface of the ground. Each
trough includes a fluid passageway therethrough permitting water
to flow from the trough into the ground.
Sensor discloses a mobile irrigation system including a main
pipeline (14), mobile towers (18), and drop tube assemblies (22)
for supplying water directly into furrows formed in the ground.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007