Appeal No. 97-1691
Application No. 08/519,375
examiner asserts. Rather, these members move into an open
space between the compression chamber 16 and roller conveyors
37 of a packing and binding device in order to "bridge the
distance" (column 4, lines 65 and 66) between these two work
stations. Since there is nothing in either Rieger or
Strömberg which either teaches or fairly suggests a moveable
retaining wall that pivots into an opening in a packaging
chamber as expressly required by independent claim 1, the
prior art relied on by the examiner fails to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
defined by claims 1-10.
Since the prior art relied on by the examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we need not
consider the appellant's evidence of nonobviousness. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
In view of the above, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined
teachings of Rieger and Strömberg.
In summary:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007