Appeal No. 96-3841 Page 7 Application No. 08/093,664 With respect to the appealed claims, we agree with the examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious in view of 4 the combined teachings of the applied prior art to modify Sadao's toilet deodorizing apparatus to arrive at the claimed invention. Having arrived at the conclusion that the teachings of the applied prior art are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we recognize that the evidence of nonobviousness submitted by the appellant must be considered en route to a determination of obviousness/nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we consider anew the issue of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, carefully evaluating therewith the objective evidence of nonobviousness supplied by the appellant. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445-46, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444-45 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 4In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007