Ex parte MORO - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-3305                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/381,886                                                  


          not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 8 through 13                 
          under                                                                       
          35 U.S.C. § 103.  Our reasoning for this determination                      
          follows.                                                                    


               In 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, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173                  
          USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).  Furthermore, the conclusion that                
          the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be                   
          supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in               
          the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of                 
          ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual               
          to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive               
          at the claimed invention.  See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007