Appeal 2007-0359
Application 10/485,356
1 case of anticipation over Baechle of the invention claimed in the Appellants’
2 claim 18.
3 The Examiner argues that “it is well known to connect the hydraulic lines on
4 a tangent in order to prevent air from collecting” (Final Rejection 3).
5 As stated in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2144.03 (8th ed.,
6 rev. 3, Aug. 2005), “[i]t is never appropriate to rely solely on ‘common
7 knowledge’ in the art without evidentiary support in the record, as the principal
8 evidence upon which a rejection was based.”
9 The Examiner has not provided the required evidence in support of the
10 argument that connecting hydraulic lines on a tangent to prevent air from
11 collecting was well known in the art. We therefore conclude that the Examiner has
12 established a prima facie case of obviousness over Baechle of the invention
13 claimed in the Appellants’ claim 18.
14 Remand
15 We remand the application for the Examiner to provide evidence in support
16 of the Examiner’s argument that it was well known in the art to connect hydraulic
17 lines on a tangent to prevent air from collecting.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013