Appeal No. 2005-1134
Application 10/064,583
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the examiner has failed to
again establish a prima facie case of anticipation, see generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Spada, 911 F.2d at 707, 15 USPQ2d at 1657;
Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677-78, 7 USPQ 1315, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
1988); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452,
1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and a prima facie case of obviousness. See
generally, In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626,
1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074-76, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-1600 (Fed.
Cir. 1988); In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Therefore, we reverse all of the grounds of rejection.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007