Appeal No. 2001-0464 Page 4
Application No. 08/888,967
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).
Claim 6, the only independent claim on appeal, reads as
follows:
The combination comprising:
a chairlift having a seat and a restraint bar;
a snowboard having front and back foot mountings;
a substantially stiff cord;
a hook means at one end of said cord for coupling to
a rear binding of one of said front and back foot
mountings, said hook means being configured to slide
under said binding to be held in place thereat; and
a clasp at an opposite end of said cord for coupling
to said restraint bar of said chairlift, with said clasp
being configured to encircle said restraint bar when
closed;
with said substantially stiff cord being of limited
give and springiness by which said restraint bar of said
chairlift serves to support the weight of said snowboard
when said clasp's closed and to restrain said snowboard
against moving about in wind;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007