Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Here, the examiner has not identified any evidence or
persuasive technical reasoning to establish that when rotational
force is applied to the handle means of Damark’s treadmill, the
5 center of gravity is positioned to facilitate rotation of the
treadmill about the wheels. (FF35.) Mere conjecture or
speculation is not enough to shift the burden of proof to the
appellant.
Accordingly, we hold that the examiner has failed to carry
10 the initial burden of proving a prima facie case of obviousness
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as to appealed claim
13. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-
78 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
15
20
32
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007