Appeal No. 1998-2095
Application No. 08/460,311
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Only if that
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence
or argument shift to the applicant. Id. If the examiner
fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is
improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In order to
establish the prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention,
all the claim limitations
must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka,
490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974).
We begin our review with independent claim 30. We note
that claim 30 calls for a method of implanting an intraluminal
vascular graft within a diseased or damaged vessel comprising,
inter alia,
. . . attaching said intraluminal vascular graft to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007