Appeal No. 2005-0981
Application No. 09/848,665 Page 8
In a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), all limitations
recited in a claim must be considered and given appropriate
effect in judging the patentability of that claim against the
prior art. See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63, 180 USPQ
789, 791 (CCPA 1974). This, the examiner has not done. The
general assertions submitted by the examiner concerning the
troughs or receptacle required by appealed claims 33 and 45,
respectively, are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case
of obviousness absent the presentation of persuasive evidence
supporting the examiner’s viewpoint that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to use such claimed water receiving
structures in conjunction with a moveable furrow irrigation
system as disclosed by Sesser.
For the above stated reasons, we reverse the § 103(a)
rejection advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007