Appeal No. 1999-1529 Page 7
Application No. 08/366,985
Since all the limitations of claim 39 are taught by Scott
for the reasons stated above, the decision of the examiner to
reject claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 38 and 41
to 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560,
562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 1 and 41 to 49
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007