Appeal No. 2000-0315
Application 08/671,983
end to reduce condensation, but not in the manner as instantly claimed. The mat must
contact the supporting surfaces which are part of the well to fall within the scope of
claims 1 and 17.
If one removes the ribs during the substitution, then the mat is in contact with the
dome tops (“supporting surfaces”) of Nichols creating a plurality of areas of almost flat
contact but meeting the literal limitations of claim 1. The Examiner states that Allen
explicitly teaches the need to minimize contact (Examiner’s Supplemental Answer, page
1, lines 9-12), and we agree with this general supposition. However, Allen
accomplishes this by using the ribs to separate the mat and the bottom having
apertures.
The Examiner finds that the substitution of the aperture structure of Nichols for
the tray apertures and ribs of Allen clearly minimizes the structure required to provide
optimum sterilant flow and mat support. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 8-11). We
are not convinced of this. Domed structures would provide many contact areas which
were of a flat nature, potentially frustrating the purpose of draining fluids. It would seem
equally likely to us that an artisan would solve this potential problem by keeping the ribs
of Allen.
The burden is upon the examiner to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Findings
of fact and conclusions of law must be made in accordance with the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §706 (A), (E) (1994). See Zurko v. Dickinson, 527 U.S. 150,
158, 119 S. Ct. 1816, 1821, 50 USPQ2d 1930, 1934 (1999). Under the Act, the agency
making the findings and conclusions must set forth its findings and explain its
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007