Appeal No. 1999-0530 Page 4
Application No. 08/722,682
We begin by noting the following principles from
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when
the teachings from the prior art itself would appear
to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a
person of ordinary skill in the art." In re Bell,
991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and appellants' argument.
The examiner makes the following assertions and
admissions.
Fujino teaches:
a measurement of pressure with respect to the
receptacle as an inherent function of time (col. 3,
lines 39+) which is the same in characteristic as a
"tanking" (ie filling) operation, as claimed.
Fujino fails to explicitly teach obtaining a
"trace of pressure" from said pressure measurement.
Therefore, Fujino fails to teach "concluding that a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007