Appeal 2007-1719
Application 10/655,483
Henry only to demonstrate that a row crop harvester typically supports stripper
plates on the frame of the harvester, and as such, it would have been well known
that Greiner would have a cutting platform supported by the frame 18
(Answer 3-4). The Examiner does not rely on either Hurlburt or Henry to cure the
deficiencies of Greiner, and thus the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness of claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16-20.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greiner
and Hurlburt or Henry.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
jrg
CNH AMERICA LLC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPARTMENT
700 STATE STREET
RACINE, WI 53404
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: September 9, 2013