Appeal No. 2005-2435
Application No. 10/407,498
based on an inherency theory. For example, the examiner and the
appellant should consider whether such a theory would support a
finding that appealed claim 1 is anticipated by such prior art
apparatus as a bungee cord having a metal hook at each end. Again,
see In re Schreiber, Id.
SUMMARY
We have reversed each of the § 112 (second paragraph),
§ 102 and § 103 rejections advanced on this appeal because in
each rejection the examiner has failed to carry his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of unpatentability. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007