Appeal No. 2000-2040 Page 4
Application No. 09/027,867
evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under
appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 21 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 would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of
the references 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).
The appellant argues in the briefs that the applied prior
art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require the claimed golf shoe
cleat to include a plurality of teeth having a surface with an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007